1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Second Appeal No. 415 of 2008 (Geetabai wd/o Narayanrao Barde & anr. Vs. Sau. Vimal w/o Keshavrao Bairam & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. D.L. Dharmadhikar, Adv. For the appellants. Mr. R. Darda, Adv. For R- 1, 2,5 and 6. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 15 th January, 2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this second appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur, in Special Civil Suit No 203/1998 on 30th of September, 2005, as also the judgment passed by the Principal District Judge, Chandrapur, on 26th of March, 2008, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 161/2007. The respondent nos. 1 to 6 had filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of possession and damages against the respondent no.7. The plaintiffs pleaded that on 24/5/1989, the 2 plaintiffs had agreed to purchase the superstructure situated on 661 sq. ft. land, from one Mahadeo Janaji Tode. The legal heirs of Mahadeo executed a sale deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed to be the owners of the suit property and, therefore, issued a registered notice to the defendant/respondent no.7, asking him to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to them. Since the possession was not handed over to the plaintiffs, a suit was instituted. The suit was decreed by the judgment dated 30/9/2005. An appeal against the same was not preferred by the original defendant, but the present appellants sought leave of the first appellate Court to file an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30/9/2005. The first appellate Court, however, by the judgment dated 26th of March, 2008, held that the appellants were not the interested persons and they had no locus standi to file the appeal. The Court held that there was no question of remanding the matter to the trial Court by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 30/9/2005. 3 I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, and have also perused the impugned judgment dated 26th of March, 2008. It is not in dispute that a suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the plaintiffs against the present appellants also in regard to the 661 sq. ft. of land on which the suit premises from which the eviction of the respondent no.7 was sought. The suit filed by the plaintiffs against the present appellants had been decreed and the judgment had been confirmed in the first and the second appeals filed by the appellants. The superstructure from which the plaintiffs sought the eviction of the respondent no.7 also stands on the same piece of land i.e. 661 sq. ft. of land of which a decree for specific performance of contract has been passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The first appellate Court has observed that the present appellants were aware of the fact of the pendency of the present civil suit filed by the plaintiffs against the respondent no.7 for possession, but had not taken any action for their joinder as a necessary party to the suit. The first appellate Court has further observed 4 that the appellants had never asserted that they were the owners of the superstructure which was standing on 661 sq. ft. of land. I have considered the judgment passed by the first appellate Court in detail as also the agreement executed by the appellants in favour of the plaintiffs and one executed by Mahadeo Tode in favour of the plaintiffs. On a perusal of these documents, it is clear that the appellate Court has rightly held that the appellants were not necessary parties to the suit and had no locus standi to file the appeal. Hence for the reasons recorded in the judgment passed by the first appellate Court on 26/3/2008 as also the reasons recorded in the order passed by this Court on 12th of January, 2009 in Second Appeal No. 396 of 2008, the second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP