( 1 ) wp7573-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7573 OF 2009 Sayyad Yusuf Gaffur and another. PETITIONERS VERSUS Ramesh Ghewarchand Bora and others. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. C.R. Deshpande, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.M. Gholap, advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. R.R. Karpe, advocate for the respondent No. 4. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th January, 2011] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petition is filed against order dated 26th August, 2009, rendered on applications (Exh-40 and Exh-44) in suit (Spl. C.S. No. 186/2006). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on certain observations in "Karpoora Sundarapandian Ramalakshmi Ammal Kalvi Valarchi Kuzhu, (Educational Agency), ( 2 ) wp7573-09 S. Nallathambi and G. Sangamirthan vs. The Director of School Education and others", (2004) 4 MLJ 185. In the given case, a Single Judge of Madras High Court held that the transposition cannot be allowed when 7th defendant, who had applied for transposition, had given her consent for a decree to be passed and, therefore, there was no existing cause of action for her. 4. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge allowed the transposition of the original defendant No. 3 as plaintiff No. 4 and the plaintiffs were directed to make the necessary amendment. 5. It is pertinent to notice that the suit came to be filed by the three (3) plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement of sale executed by the defendant No. 1 and 2 in their favour. The original defendant No. 3 is one of the co- purchasers under the agreement. Since he did not initially join the original plaintiffs No.1 to 3, they added him as defendant No.3 in the suit. The defendant No. 3 passed a purshis (Exh-42) to the effect that the suit may be decreed as per the prayers made in the plaint. The plaint would show that the plaintiffs sought specific enforcement of the agreement by directing the defendants No. 1 and 2 to execute the sale-deed ( 3 ) wp7573-09 in respect of the suit property in joint names of themselves and the defendant No. 3. They also sought declaration that they were not liable to pay anything more towards the price. They further sought injunction against the original defendants No. 1 and 2. Needless to say, the defendant No. 3 was the ultimate beneficiary and nothing was claimed against him. On the other hand, the original plaintiffs claimed the decree for themselves as well as the defendant No. 3. They never said that nothing should be given to the defendant No. 3. In other words, there was no conflict of the interest qua the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 3. The original plaintiffs did not challenge the impugned order where by the defendant No. 3 is directed to be transposed as the plaintiff No. 4 in the array of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are dominus litis. They have no grievance against the impleadment notwithstanding the fact that they resisted the application before the trial court, since they have not preferred any such petition likewise that of the original defendants No. 1 and 2. 6. Basically, the petitioners (original defendant No. 1 and 2) have no locus standi to challenge the said order of transposition. It is argued that they are likely to face yet another plaintiff and there may be further reply to the stand ( 4 ) wp7573-09 taken by him. I do not agree. The defendant No. 3 cannot take any stand contrary to that of the original plaintiffs because they are all having the common interest and are sailing in the same boat. Needless to say, the present petitioners will not be required to face multi-faceted plea and that they have no right to challenge such order of transposition when the original plaintiffs have not challenged the same. In this view of the matter, the petition is disposed of. All the questions are kept open. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp7573-09