ORDER : S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J. 1. The applicant, who styled itself as 3rd party, has taken out this application with following payers: (A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the present application and be pleased join the Applicant - Fortune Dream-Con Pvt. Ltd. as a party respondent in O.J Appeal No. 83 of 2007, in the interest of justice; (B) Such other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case be granted in favour of the Applicant. 2. The facts, as could be gathered therefrom, needs to be adverted to as under: 2.1 It is submitted that the captioned Appeal has been filed by the on 13.03.2006, challenging the oral judgment dated 14.06.2005 passed by the Company Judge in Company Application No. 310 of 2003 in Company Petition No. 126 of 1990. The Company Application No. 310 of 2003 was preferred by respondent no. 2 under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 for validation of transfer of immovable property being Plot nos. 78/5, 78/6, 78/182 & 78/183 (formaing part of land bearing R.S No. 78 of Village: Kathiria, Nani Daman) by the Company in liquidation in favour of respondent no. 2 and his wife. Respondent no. 2 had purchased the aforesaid property vide registered sale deeds dated 28.12.1993 and 14.06.1994 from the Company in liquidation. 2.2 The Company Judge vide oral judgment dated 14.06.2005 upheld and confirmed disposition of the aforesaid plots in favour of respondent no. 2 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section 2 of section 536 of the Companies Act, 1956. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, respondent no. 1 has preferred the captioned appeal. This Court vide order dated 21.09.2006 admitted the appeal and stay was not granted. 2.3 During the pendency of the appeal, respondent no. 2 and his wife executed a registered sale deed 24.04.2007 in favour of one Mr. Chandrakant Narsaim alias Chandrakand Narshibhai Tandel in respect of private plot nos. 5 & 6, in Sector - 1, admeasuring 931.50 sq. mtrs. and 716.22 sq. mtrs. respectively, forming a part of non-agricultural land bearing R.S No. 78, lying, situated at Naryan Park, Village: Kathiria, Nani Daman, Daman. Pursuant to the execution of the registered sale deeds, the purchaswer was put in possession of the plots by the vendor and vide application dated 09.05.2007 the purchaser applied for mutation of revenue entries. mtrs. and 716.22 sq. mtrs. respectively, forming a part of non-agricultural land bearing R.S No. 78, lying, situated at Naryan Park, Village: Kathiria, Nani Daman, Daman. Pursuant to the execution of the registered sale deeds, the purchaswer was put in possession of the plots by the vendor and vide application dated 09.05.2007 the purchaser applied for mutation of revenue entries. The Mamlatdar, Daman vide order dated 16.05.2007 ordered for mutation of the name of the said purchaser. Thereafter Mr. Chandrakand Narasaim vide registered sale deeds dated 16.04.2012 and 27.04.2012 sold and transferred the said private plots to the applicant company. The applicant is also put in possession of the said private plots by the vendor. By virtue of the aforesaid sale deeds it has become the lawful owner of the said private plots. It is submitted that the applicant will therefore be vitally affected if the reliefs prayed for in the appeal are granted in favour of the respondent no. 1-original appellant. It is submitted that the respondent having sold the said private plots may not effectively pursue the appeal. Hence, the present application. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has urged that the rights of the applicant is likely to be affected on account of outcome of O.J Appeal No. 83 of 2007, wherein the joining party application is made. The counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 403 , and in case of A. Nawab John v. V.N Subramaniyam, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 738 , submitted that there is no express bar qua dealing in the property. 4. Learned counsel Shri Desai appearing for the original appellant has vehemently opposed this application and submitted that the applicant has remained indolent, as the sale was effected four years back and he has not bother to join and implead itself in any proceeding. At this stage, it cannot be permitted to be joined as the purchaser of the property in question. It is at its own risk and it has to fight this battle through the original respondent only. 5. We are of the considered view that joining party application, if allowed, is not going to prejudice the original appellant. All these contentions are required to be urged at the time of final disposal of the appeal. It is at its own risk and it has to fight this battle through the original respondent only. 5. We are of the considered view that joining party application, if allowed, is not going to prejudice the original appellant. All these contentions are required to be urged at the time of final disposal of the appeal. The application is allowed. The applicant is permitted to be joined as party respondent at its own cost and consequence. 6. The main appeal i.e O.J Appeal No. 83 of 2007 may come up for hearing on 03.10.2017