1 WP 4133/2011 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4133 OF 2011 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. S.V. Pitre i/b Manoj Wadekar & Associates for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 4TH JULY 2011 P.C. : 1. In a suit filed by respondent no.1 against respondent nos.2 and 3 for specific performance of agreement for sale of the property bearing survey nos. 644 to 650 and 651/2 and different hissas thereof, the petitioners made an application for being made as parties to the suit. The application was rejected. That order is impugned before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly 2 WP 4133/2011 submitted that respondent nos.2 and 3 have sold a part of the property, which is subject matter of Special Civil Suit No. 1918 of 2007 even before the filing of the present suit, to the petitioners and therefore they should be allowed to be joined as parties to the suit. He secondly submitted that there was collusion between respondent no1 on the one hand and respondent nos.2 & 3 on the other hand as they were seeking to obtain a collusive decree so as to defeat the rights of the present petitioners and therefore also the petitioners should be joined as parties to the suit. 3. It is settled principle of law that a decree passed in a suit is not binding on a person who is not a party to the suit. As such, the apprehension that the petitioners’ rights would be affected by reason of a decree obtained by respondent no.1 and respondent nos.2 & 3 in allegedly a collusive suit, is misplaced. Admittedly, the petitioners are not parties to the 3 WP 4133/2011 agreement for sale executed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 in favour of respondent no.1. The scope of a suit filed by respondent no.1 for specific performance would be expanded if the present petitioners are allowed to be joined as parties to the suit. That cannot be done. The trial Court committed no error in rejecting the application. Writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)