JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner – original plaintiff with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.12.2017, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bardoli, below exh. 75 in Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 2010 and further to allow the amendment application, exh. 75.

2. Notice to respondent Nos. 5, 8 and 9 has been duly served long back, however, none has appeared for them.

3. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Arpit Kapadia for learned advocate Ms. Shaili Kapadia waives service for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties present, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

4. Facts in nutshell of the case on hand are that the petitioner - original plaintiff instituted a civil suit for specific performance being Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 2010 against the respondents – original defendants. It is the case of the petitioner – plaintiff that the dispute pertains to a land situated at revenue survey Nos. 78 and 80 of Taluka: Bardoli, Dist.: Surat. The land in question was in the name of original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and the property in question i.e. Block Nos. 20, 21 and 22 of Mouje: Kharad, Dist.: Surat was in the name of original defendant Nos. 5 to 7. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 22.09.2009, the original defendants issued a soda chiththi in favour of the present petitioner against which, the petitioner also paid an amount of Rs.1,00,001/- as a token. It is submitted that thereafter, since the defendants did not remove the objections/defects prevailing on the land in question, aforesaid civil suit was filed by the petitioner praying for certain reliefs. That, during the pendency of the said suit, the original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 executed a sale deed of property situated at survey No. 80 of Taluka: Bardoli, Dist.: Surat to one Shri Bipinchandra Lakshmanbhai Saliya (HUF) and accordingly, when the petitioner came to know about the same, he filed an amendment application to implead the said purchaser as a party defendant No. 8 in the said civil suit, which came to be allowed by virtue of an order dated 30.08.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner also came to know that the original defendant Nos. 5 to 7 had also executed a registered sale deed No. 3144 dated 22.11.2011 of the property at survey Nos. 20, 21 and 22 of Mouje: Kharad, Dist.: Surat to one Champaben Nagjibhai Patel during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the petitioner preferred an application exh. 75 seeking amendment to that effect in the suit as also to implead the said purchaser in the suit in question. The said application, however, was rejected by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order dated 21.12.2017 and hence, this petition.

5. Heard, learned advocate Mr. S. P. Majmudar for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Arpit Kapadia for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 through video conference.

5.1 Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently and fervently argued that in the present case, the petitioner is the original plaintiff in the Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 2010, which is filed for specific performance. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit in question, the respective defendant Nos. 5 to 7 sold the suit property to a third party and hence, the petitioner gave an application for amendment in the suit to bring the said fact on record as well as to implead the subsequent purchaser as a party defendant in the suit in question, however, the learned trial Judge has rejected the said application without due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the learned trial Judge has observed that the pla