1 CA3975,6708/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No. 3975 of 2011 (Raghunath Pawar (died) through LRs v. Eknath Pawar & Ors.) WITH Civil Application No. 6708 of 2011 (Raghunath Pawar (died) through LRs v. Eknath Pawar & Ors.) IN Second Appeal No. 819 of 2006 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Subhash Mundhe, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 PER COURT : 1. Both these applications can be disposed of by this common order: 2. The first mentioned application is made for adding respondent Nos. 7 to 14 to this appeal, because during pendency of this appeal, they entered into a transaction and purchased the suit land from the remaining respondents. I am told today that this transaction took place pursuant to certain matter pending before the Supreme Court in some 2 CA3975,6708/11 other case. In any case, the proposed respondents are proper and necessary parties to this litigation. So, the first mentioned application is allowed. The proposed respondents are made parties to the appeal. Amendment be carried out within two weeks. 3. The second mentioned application is filed for temporary injunction from alienating the suit land. It is said that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 alienated the suit land to the newly added respondent Nos. 7 to 14 recently and thereafter they are also inclined to sell the property further. I think, such activity should be stopped during pendency of the appeal so that multiplicity of the litigation could be avoided. So, the application deserves to be allowed. 4. Both the applications are allowed, as prayed for. 14th June, 11 ( A.V.NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/