1 cac296-10 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 296 OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.122 OF 2006 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. ..... Mr. Sachin Chavan i/b. Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the applicants. Mr. Girish J. Paryani for respondent Nos.1 to 3. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 8, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The applicants are the revision applicants. The prayer made in the application is for transposing the second applicant as a respondent in the revision application. In terms of order dated 1st December, 2010, the second applicant has filled an affidavit dated 10th January, 2011. In the affidavit it is stated that the second 2 cac296-10 applicant does not desire to continue as a revision applicant. 2. The application is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. His submission is that considering the fact that the second applicant was one of the revision applicant, interim relief has been granted in the revision application. He, therefore, opposes the prayer made in this application. 3. The second applicant does not desire to continue as one of the revision applicants. She cannot be compelled to continue as a revision applicant. Therefore, the present application will have to be allowed. It will have to be made clear that all the other statements made in the additional affidavit of the second applicant are not accepted. If according to the case of the respondents, stay was granted in the revision application as the second applicant was one of the revision applicants, the contesting respondents can always apply for vacating the interim stay. There is another prayer for 3 cac296-10 correcting the name of the respondent No.9. The said prayer will have to be allowed. 4. Accordingly application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The second applicant shall be transposed as the respondent No.10 in the revision application. Amendment to be carried out within four weeks from today. 5. As far as prayer clause (c) is concerned liberty is granted to the appropriate separate application. 6. As observed in the earlier part of the order, the contesting respondents are at liberty to take out appropriate application. (A.S.OKA, J.)