1 WP 4369.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4369 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.P.F.Patni,Advocate for the Petitioner. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 22/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. The respondents/petitioners had filed Suit for declaration and injunction. During the pendency of the Suit, the present petitioners had purchased the part of the suit property in the year 2001. Thereafter, had filed an application for impleading them as defendants. The trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. Patni, the learned counsel submits that Order I Rule 10 ( 2 ) of the Code of Civil Procedure [ For short, ‘ the Code ’ ] gives wide discretion to the learned Judge to implead the persons like petitioners as party defendants. Even if the 2 WP 4369.2011 petitioners were not necessary party, they are the proper party. For the said purpose, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw and another V/s Farida Khatoon and another reported in 2005 (5) ALL MR – 458 (S.C.). 3. The learned counsel further contends that the trial court in para no. 16 of its order has observed that the original defendants i.e. the vendors of the present petitioners have lost interest in the litigation and there is possibility that they may not contest the Suit. In light of that, the petitioners should have been allowed to be impleaded, as their interest would be prejudicially and materially affected. The learned counsel further contends that even if it is the discretion of the Court, still the same should have been exercised as per the judicial norms. No detail enquiry is contemplated. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bakerbeg S/o Subhanbeg and another V/s Shrikant S/o Laxminarayan Zanwar and others reported in 2008 ( 3 ) ALL MR 656. 4. It is the trite law that the purchaser 3 WP 4369.2011 pendente lite is bound by the decree that is passed unless and except he proves that the decree was a collusive decree. The purchaser pendente lite can not claim any right to be added as a party. The Apex Court in case of Servindersingh V/s Dalgitsing and others reported in 1997 (1) MLJ – 539 has held that the person, who is a purchaser pendente lite is neither the necessary party nor the proper party. 5. While passing the impugned order, no error has been committed by the trial court. 6. Mr. Patni, the learned counsel further submits that even as per the provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code, the petitioners would be representative in interest and the property devolved upon the petitioners and so by virtue of the said provision, the petitioners would get a right. The learned Judge in para no. 9 of the order has observed that he is only concern with the provision of Order I Rule 10 of the Code and not the provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code. In light of the above, the petitioners are not prohibited from resorting to the provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code and if any such application is made, the trial court shall consider the same on its own merits. 4 WP 4369.2011 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 4369.2011