1 wp 6001.2022 (J).odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6001 OF 2022 ( MANOJ RAMESH GOYANKA AND ANOTHER VS. RAJRANI WD/O LAXMIKANT TRIVEDI AND OTHERS ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. Abhijeet Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. M. P. Kariya, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 6. Mr. Sawan Alaspurkar, Advocate for respondent No.21(iii). CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : APRIL 30, 2026 1) The present petitioners have purchased properties which are subject matter of a suit for partition and separate possession being R.C.S.No. 272/1987. The suit is partly decreed. However, being aggrieved by the shares allotted by the trial Court the defendant No.1 preferred an appeal being R.C.A.No. 63/2012, which came to be renumbered as R.C.A.No. 198/2017. The present petitioners have purchased the suit properties from the plaintiffs vide four separate sale deeds dated 28/05/2003. The petitioners moved applications vide Exh.40 and 54 for addition of their names as party respondents and for substitution their names as appellants respectively. Both these applications were initially rejected vide order dated 30/07/2014. The said orders were assailed by the petitioners before this Court in Writ Petition No.5629/2014. The petition came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 26/06/2015. The impugned order passed below Exh.40 and 54 was set aside and the KOLHE 2026:BHC-NAG:6804 2 wp 6001.2022 (J).odt order of abatement of appeal passed below Exh.1 in the appeal was also set aside. The learned appellate Court was directed to reconsider the applications at Exh.40 and 54. Thereafter, the application came to be decided vide order dated 04/03/2022 passed by the learned District Judge-1 Hinganghat. 2) Although the applications are allowed by directing the names of petitioners to be added as respondents and also permitting them to be transposed as appellant Nos.3 and 4 and petitioners are aggrieved by observation by the learned first appellate Court in paragraph 30 of the order wherein the learned Court has observed that the petitioners cannot challenge merits of the decree impugned in the appeal. 3) The learned appellate Court has recorded that since the petitioners are lis pendens transferees they will be bound by the outcome of the appeal. It will also be necessary to record that the learned appellate Court has by referring to Order 22 Rule 10 observed that the transposition of respondents (petitioners) as appellants was required to be allowed, since a question pertaining to their rights/interest, acquired during pendency of the litigation was required to be adjudicated. 4) A lis pendens transfer is not per se illegal. The fate of such transfer is only subject to outcome of the litigation. Right of lis pendens transferee to be impleaded in a proceeding is recognised by Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC. The learned appellate Court has also recorded that rights of the petitioners are involved KOLHE 3 wp 6001.2022 (J).odt in adjudication of the appeal and has accordingly allowed the application for joinder of their names as respondents and transposition of their names as appellants. Having held so, the learned first appellate Court ought not to have held that the petitioners, even upon being transposed as appellants will not have the right to assail merits of the decree impugned in the appeal. The observation is completely unsustainable. 5) The petition is allowed clarifying that the petitioners who have purchased the suit property pending the litigation from original plaintiffs will have a right to assail the decree passed by the learned trial Court by contesting the appeal on merits. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) KOLHE