1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.709 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Shri B.R. Zaveri for the Petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a third party to the suit filed by the 1st Respondent. Admittedly, the Petitioner has entered into a transaction in respect of the suit property during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, the transaction is hit by lis pendens. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. v. Farida Khatoon & Anr., [AIR 2005 SC 2209 ]. He submitted that the Court has power to allow a purchaser who has taken the property during pendency of the suit to be impleaded as a party to the 2 suit in a case where the transferor of such party is not likely to contest the proceedings. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that interest of the Petitioner in the suit property is substantial. 3. The law laid down by the Apex Court in Amit Kumar Shaw’s case (supra) is very clear. It is the discretion of the Court to allow impleadment of a party who has acquired the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The discretion has been exercised by the trial Court against the Petitioner. No case for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The Writ Petition is rejected. However, the rights and contentions of the Petitioner as well as remedies available to the Petitioner are kept open. (A.S.OKA, J ) ash