1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.464/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4425/2008 (D) [Smt. Ushatai wd/o Sureshchandra Rathi and others .vrs. Rameshchandra Shrikisanji Rathi] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Shri Kasat, Advocate for appellants/petitioners, Shri Ashish Chaware, Advocate h/f Shri V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent. .......... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 08, 2010. Heard. This appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No. 4425/2008 filed by the respondent and permitting impleadment of the purchasers of the suit property as parties to the suit. The appellants are the plaintiffs in a suit for partition and separate possession of the properties. In the suit, they have sought relief in respect of the specified property. The respondent filed written statement alleging vide para nos.6 and 7 that Survey Nos.152/1 and 140/2 have not been included by the plaintiffs in the suit property though the 2 plaintiffs and the defendant have succeeded to the title of the suit properties. Thereafter, apparently these two properties were sold by the plaintiffs to third party purchasers. Accordingly, the defendant filed an application for impleadment of those purchasers as parties to the suit. The trial Court rejected this application. The learned Single Judge has found that impleadment is necessary in accordance with the law. Shri Kasat, learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently argued that the purchasers need not have been impleaded in the suit because the purchasers are said to have purchased the properties which are not subject matter of the suit and there is no pleading by the respondent in regard to those properties. We do not find any merit in the said submission as there is a clear reference to those properties vide para nos.6 and 7 of the written statement. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the appeal. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, time to decide the suit is extended by a period of 12 months. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande