*1* 51.cas.1792.10 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1792 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2005 Ganesh Anant Joshi ..Appellant (Org. Plaintiff) -Versus- Mukund Hanumantrao Deshpande ..Respondent (Org.Defendant No.1/1) -And- Sau.Gayatri Uday Shah ..Applicant (Intervener/Developer of Suit property) .......... Mr.M.M.Sathaye for the Applicant. Mr.Abhay L.Patki for the Respondent. Mr.M.L.Patil for the Appellant. .......... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 7TH FEBRUARY 2011. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for parties. 2 This civil application is preferred by Sau.Gayatri Uday Shah for intervening in second appeal no.27 of 2005. *2* 51.cas.1792.10 3 The brief facts of the matter are as under : (i) The appellant-Ganesh Anant Joshi filed the Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 1981 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj, District Sangli for perpetual injunction and possession in respect of house property bering C.T.S.NO.1548, M.H.No.5012, situated at Brahmanpuri, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli against the respondent-Mukund Hanmantrao Deshpande. The said suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj by the judgment and decree dated 6th July 2001 directing the respondent/defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the appellant/original plaintiff. (ii) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6th July 2001 passed by the Trial Court, the respondent/original defendant preferred the regular civil appeal no.263 of 2001 in the court of Additional District Judge, Sangli. The learned District Court, Sangli by its judgment and decree dated 15th September 2004 allowed the said appeal. (iii) The appellant/original plaintiff preferred the present second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15th September 2004 in regular civil appeal no.263 of 2001 and the same is pending for final hearing. (iv) During the pendency of the regular civil appeal no.263 of 2001, the respondent-original defendant entered into development agreement dated 10th September 2003 with the applicant/intervener for *3* 51.cas.1792.10 development of the suit land. The said development agreement duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Miraj. 4 The applicant states that since he has purchased the development rights of the suit property and also is the registered power of attorney holder of the respondent, she incurred all the expenses for fighting the appeal in the District Court, Sangli on behalf of the respondent/original defendant. The applicant states that the learned District Court, Sangli by its judgment and decree dated 15th September 2004 was pleased to allow the said appeal filed by the respondent/original defendant. The appellant/original plaintiff herein therefore challenged the said judgment and decree of the District Court, Sangli in this Hon’ble High Court by filing the second appeal no.27 of 2005 along with civil application no.1910 of 2004. 5 The applicant states that on 24th April 2006, she made further payment to the respondent/original defendant of ` 35,000/- by cash and `4,15,000/- by cheque in furtherance of the said development agreement. 6 The applicant further submits that on 30th March 2009, she again has paid ` 4,21,000/- by cheque to the respondent/original defendant as a price in lieu of the flat which was agreed to be given to the *4* 51.cas.1792.10 respondent/original defendant as a consideration under the said development agreement. The applicant states that the respondent/defendant has accepted all the payments from the applicant. Thus, the applicant has paid total consideration of ` 8,71,000/- towards the said development agreement. 7 The learned counsel Mr.Sathaye appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that during the pendency of the present second appeal, the respondent/original defendant issued notice to them for cancellation of the development agreement dated 10th September 2003. Therefore, the applicant filed regular civil suit no.130 of 2009 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj for declaration and injunction and the same is pending for hearing and final disposal. 8 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that in view of the subsequent development, it is necessary for them to join/intervene in the present litigation because the respondent/original defendant may or may not prosecute the present second appeal in their interest. He submits that till today, the development agreement is in existence and they are entitled to development the suit property. *5* 51.cas.1792.10 9 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/original plaintiff vehemently opposed the present civil application on the ground that the applicant has no right, title or interest to intervene in the present proceeding. He submits that the second appeal is already fixed for final hearing. If the applicant is allowed to join as the appellant in the present second appeal, the final hearing of the second appeal will be prolonged. He further submits that the main dispute is between the appellant and the respondent only. 10 Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of the opinion that if the applicant is allowed to intervene in the present proceeding, she can protect her right on the basis of the development agreement dated 10th September 2003, in case, the respondent/original defendant failed to take appropriate steps. In any case, as on today, the development agreement is in favour of the applicant, which is a registered document. 11 Considering these facts, the applicant-Sau.Gayatri Uday Shah is allowed to intervene in the present second appeal. 12 The appellant is directed to carry out appropriate amendment joining the applicant-Sau.Gayatri Uday Shah as intervener within three weeks *6* 51.cas.1792.10 from today and serve the papers on her. 13 The civil application is disposed off accordingly. ( K.K. TATED, J.)