1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1490 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 239 OF 1996 Ramchandra Laxman Dalvi since deceased through L.rs. Smt. Sunanda Ramchandra Dalvi & ors........Applicants versus Harishchandra Krishna Dalvi & ors........ Respondents. Mr. M.S. Karnik adv. for the Applicant/intervener Mr.H.M. Inamdar i/b P.M. Pradhan for appellant in S.A. Mr. Siddeshwar B.Katel i/b A.A.pol adv. for the respondents CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 3rd APRIL, 2009. P.C.: 1. The present applicants are not parties to the suit. The respondent instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of his share by alleging that the suit properties is a joint family property and he is having 1/3rd share thereon. The trial court dismissed the suit. However the plaintiff in first appeal before the District Judge succeeded and a decree for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit properties have been passed in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby the defendant have preferred the present second appeal. 2 3. During pendency of the appeal, the present appicants have puchased the entire suit property from the present appellants and haing vital interest in the suit property, moved the present application for their impleadment as party respondents. The learned counsel for the applicants relied on the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 and Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to seek the impleadment, they being transferee pendente lite.The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2005(11) SCC 403 to contend that though the transferee pentant lie has no legal right to be impleaded, the transferee can be joined as proper party if his interest in the subject matter of the suit is substantial and just not periferial. The said judgment concluds that having regard to the facts and cirumstances, the court need to exercise the jurisdiction. In paragraph 14 of the judgment the Supreme Court has observed that since under the doctrine of lis pendens a decree passed in the suit during the pendency of which a transfer is made binds the transferee, his application to be brought on record should ordinarily be allowed. In the back drop of the above referred facts, I am of the view that it would be in furtherence of cause of justice to allow the present application and permit the applicants to be impeaded as party respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has no objection. However the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff objects to the 3 applicant's impleadment as party respondent. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff and on the contrary it would be advantageous to the court to have the applicants on record as respondent. Hence in the interest of justice the application is allowed and disposed of. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)