N.J. JAMADAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against a common order dated 18th January, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in a Chamber Summons No.1280 of 2018 along with an application on the praecipe, whereby the Chamber Summons taken out by the Appellant herein for impleading him as a party Defendant to Suit No.461 of 2010, instituted by Respondent no.1 herein against Respondent nos.2 to 5, came to be disposed of as infructuous.

2. Having regard to the limited nature of controversy, with the consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to in the capacity in which they are arrayed in the suit before the learned Single Judge.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts necessary for determination of this appeal can be summarised as under:

The Plaintiff, Edit II Productions, instituted a suit bearing No.461 of 2010, against Defendant nos.1 to 4, for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,00,43,514/- (Rs. Three crore forty-three thousand five hundred fourteen) along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., plus damages, with the allegations that Defendant no.2 Mr. Shoeb Mohammed, who was working as Chief Accountant with the Plaintiff, committed criminal breach of trust and, inter alia, forged 433 cheques in connivance with his wife-defendant no.3, and his brother-in-law-defendant no.4, and siphoned off a huge amount from the account of the Plaintiff. It is further alleged that Defendant no.2, out of the said amount, which was siphoned off, purchased 16 properties, mostly in the name of Defendant no.3, including Flat No.B/02, Ground Floor, 'B' wing, Kohinoor Apartment, Mira Road (East), Taluka & District Thane (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed property'). In the said suit, the Plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion for appointment of Court Receiver. Eventually, the Court Receiver came to be appointed in respect of the disputed property as well.

5. Mr. Ashok Rana, the applicant-appellant was found to be in possession of the disputed property. The applicant-appellant claimed to have surrendered the possession of the disputed property to the Court Receiver. The applicant, thereafter, took out the Chamber Summons seeking impleadment as a party-Defendant no.5, to the above numbered suit. The applicant avers that Defendant no.2 had executed an agreement for sale of disputed property on 2nd July, 2004 in his favour. In terms of the said agreement, Defendant no.2 had agreed to sell the disputed property to the applicant for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. The applicant did part with the consideration, and has since been put in possession of the disputed property. However, the said agreement was not registered. Hence, on 7th March, 2011, Defendant no.2, through his Power of Attorney Mrs. Mumtaj Shaikh, executed a registered Deed of Confirmation and thereby sold the disputed property to the applicant. On the strength of these documents the Applicant claimed to be a bonafide purchaser for value of the disputed property. Thus, the Applicant sought impleadment as a party Defendant.

6. The Plaintiff resisted the prayer of impleadment. The learned Single Judge, after consideration of the averments in the Affidavit in support of Chamber Summons and the documents annexed thereto and the submissions advanced by the contesting parties was persuaded to dispose of the Chamber Summons as infructuous. The learned Single Judge observed, inter alia, that the Applicant, for the first time, staked claim as the full owner of the disputed property as the Applicant had not lodged any such claim before the Court Receiver when an opportunity was specifically given by an order passed by this Court. Secondly, from the case set up by the Applicant that by the Deed of Confirmation, dated 7th March, 2011, the Agreement for Sale allegedly executed on 2nd July, 2004 has been confirmed, it appears that, there is, prima facie,