1 WP 6500.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6500 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. A.S.Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioner. ............................... CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :29/08/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present petition is by third party. The respondent no. 1 has filed Suit for declaration and injunction. The petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 ( 2 ) of the Code of Civil Procedure submitting that the defendant has executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner and as such is a necessary party. The trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original defendant has sold the suit property to the petitioner by way of registered sale deed, of which an agreement of sale was executed on 13/04/2010. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2 WP 6500.2011 petitioner would be directly affected by any decree or order passed by the Court. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court at Panaji Bench in the case of Rajaram Rau Patil V/s Marcel de Pieade Braganza and others reported in 2005 ( 6 ) Bom. C.R. 360. The learned counsel further contends that earlier when the similar application was rejected, that time the registered sale deed was not executed and as such in view of execution of the registered sale deed, the petitioner would get interest in the property. These aspects are not considered by the Court below. 3. The Suit is for declaration and injunction. The registered sale deed is executed after filing of the Suit. Principle of lis-pendence would apply. The Apex Court in the case of Sarvinder Singh V/s Dalip Singh and others reported in 1997 ( 1) Mh.L.J. 539 has observed that a purchaser pendente-lite has no right to be included as a party. The plaintiff is a dominus litis of his case. Even the plaintiff has filed separate Suit for injunction, in which the plaintiff of the present Suit is the defendant. The dispute between the parties can also be resolved in the said Suit. In view of that, the order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to file an application before the appropriate Court for clubbing both 3 WP 6500.2011 the Suits or for trying both the Suits simultaneously. There is no impediment for the petitioner to file such application. If such an application is filed, the authority will consider the same on its own merits. 5. The Writ Petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6500.2011