1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6306 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2008 Bharat U. Bhanushali ........Applicant versus Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. Pune & ors........ Respondents. Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi adv. for the Applicant Mr. Prashant Beri i/b Prashant Beri & Co. adv. for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 5th FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. By the present application the applicant who happens to be appellant no.2 in this first appeal is seeking transposition of respondent no.2/appellant no.1 as party respondent in the appeal. The reason for the proposed transposition is apparent conflict of interest between the appellant no.1 and appellant no.2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2/appellant no.1 has placed on record an affidavit wherein it is stated that the respondent no.2/appellant no.1 has no objection for he being transposed as respondent in the first appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the said respondent no2/appellant no.1 on instructions from his client who is present in the court re-iterates 2 his no objection. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 bank has no objection for transposition. Hence the said prayer for transposition is allowed. In the application there is one more prayer and the same is for injuntion. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not pressing the said prayer being prayer clause (b) at present and seeks liberty to move separate appropriate applciation claiming the said relief. The said prayer clause (b) thus stands rejected with liberty as prayed for. Application is disposed of. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)