( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3330 OF 2010 Shivnath s/o Deorao Dukale PETITIONER VERSUS Rupchand s/o Rambhau Dukale & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. Y.V. Kakade, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Narwade, advocate for the respondents. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 19th July, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner is subsequent purchaser of a part of the agricultural land of which his vendor was allegedly a co- sharer. Thus, the petitioner stepped into the shoes of Bhagchand, who alienated the said share out of Gat No. 118/2, admeasuring 0 H.45 Ares to one Kesharbai from whom he purchased the same. Thus, he being the purchaser from one the J.D., is bound by the decree in view of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He cannot claim independent rights. 3. Considering the tenor of the application (Exh-40) filed by the petitioner in the executing Court, it is amply ( 2 ) clear that he sought impleadment as a third party. His basic nomenclature as “third party” is a misnomer. He cannot be treated as third party being purchaser claiming through one of the co-owners. Counsel seeks to rely on certain observations in “Brahmdeo Choudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & another” 1997 (1) Mh.L.J. 817. The Apex Court held that a person in possession can resist the execution of decree and it is not proper to relegate him to approach the executing Court only after dispossession. The petitioner’s application was never for obstruction, but he wanted himself to be impleaded. He is at liberty to take appropriate action if he desires to resist the execution of the decree and in such proceedings, the executing Court may consider such objections of the petitioner. All questions are kept open. Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp3330-10