1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4425 OF 2008 (Rameshchandra Shrikisanji Rathi vs. Smt. Ushatai wd/o Sureshchandra Rathi & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JULY 01, 2010. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kasat, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4 has expressed his inability and is seeking adjournment till Monday i.e. 5th July 2010 because of some difficulties. However, I find that writ petition is of the year 2008, was before this Court on several occasions and was lastly listed on 23.06.2010 and was adjourned at the request of Shri Kasat, learned counsel to today. Hence, his request for adjournment is rejected. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel has pointed out that in a suit for partition, application moved by the defendants to join subsequent purchasers from the plaintiff as parties has been rejected on the ground that field Survey Nos. 140/2 and 152/1 which form subject matter of that sale, was not involved in the suit. He points out that an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code was moved by defendants No. 5 & 6 in the suit seeking to restrain the plaintiff by order 2 of temporary injunction from transferring said fields and an undertaking that these fields would not be sold till the decision in the application was recorded. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel has produced a photostat copy of certified copy of Exh. 152 with that undertaking. According to him, that certified copy does not show that the application is disposed of. I find that the suit is for partition and separate possession. In the impugned order, the trial Court has only noted arguments of present Respondent No.1 that these field survey numbers are not involved in the suit and are not ancestral properties of the plaintiff – Ushatai. The trial Court has not recorded any finding in that respect. It had only found that as the suit was for partition and separate possession, subsequent purchasers were not necessary parties. It, therefore, rejected that application and directed defendants No. 5 & 6 to cross examine defendant No.1 – Rameshchandra. The fields were sold on 18.02.2006 and thereafter the application at Exh. 208 was moved by defendant No. 4 on 24.07.2007. The plaintiff had objected to the application also on the ground that the defendants were prolonging the matter. It can be seen that the petition is pending before this Court since 2008 and matter has not progressed further. The undertaking given by the original plaintiff shows that there was some grievance made in relation to those field survey numbers in that 3 suit. In this situation, to avoid further complications while working out equities between parties and subsequent purchasers, it is expedient to have the purchasers also as parties to that suit. In the circumstance, impugned order passed below Exh. 208 on 07.07.2008 is quashed and set aside. The application at Exh. 208 is allowed. The subsequent purchasers are permitted to be joined as defendants in that suit. The necessary amendment be carried out by 15.07.2010. The trial Court to proceed further thereafter with the adjudication in accordance with law. The proceedings in Special Civil Suit No. 312 of 1995 are expedited and the trial Court shall attempt to decide the suit finally as early as possible and in any case by 31st December 2010. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.