1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8247 OF 2009 Sunil s/o Appasaheb Gavali Age 44 years, Occ. Business, R/o 175/3, Tilak Road, Behind Ketkar Hospital, Ahmednagar ... PETITIONER VERSUS M/s Hem Engineering Works, through its Partners :- 1) Nitin Balkrushna Lohgaonkar, Age 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.32, (Baneshwar Colony), Burhanagar, Ahmednagar. 2) Anant Suryakant Joshi, Age 49 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.302, Amol Corner, Apartment, Rasanenagar, Savedi, Ahmednagar. 3) Hemant Suryakant Joshi, Age 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.4, Pratik Apartment, Anandi Bazar, Ahmednagar. 4) Mohmmad Vikaroddin Yusufuddin, Age 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o Sangamnagar, Near Hotel Varna P.B. Road, Malkapur, Tal. Karad, District Satara, through General Power of Attorney Nasiruddin Vikaruddin Kazi, Age 29 years, Occ. Business, R/o 58/2, Hina Building, Sirat Colony, Mukundnagar, Ahmednagar. ... RESPONDENTS ..... 2 Shri K.B. Autade, Advocate holding for Shri A.S. Zarekar, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.S. Sayyed, Advocate holding for Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for respondent No.4 ..... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29th September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The unserved envelope for respondent No.3 is tendered by the petitioner with an affidavit. The envelope indicate it is properly prepaid and the address is in tune to the record of respondent No.3. In spite of such attempt, respondent No.3 has failed to participate. It will be presumed to be service upon respondent No.3. 2. By consent of the parties, heard finally. Counsel for respondent No.4 waives service. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 3. The respondent No.4 moved an application to implead him in a suit for specific performance of contract, being Special Civil Suit No.153/2008. Considering the nature of controversy, though the respondent No.4 alleged that there was an earlier transaction between him and the petitioner, in respect of purchase of the property, by virtue of agreement of sale dated 7.6.1997, however, such relief could not be made available to the respondent No.4 in the suit filed by the petitioner seeking specific 3 performance. 4. The respondent No.4 may possess independent rights and may seek relief and remedies which he is at liberty to exhaust. Considering the averments made by respondent No.4, there could not be a decree either in favour of the respondent No.4 or against the respondent No.4. The impugned order calls for interference. It is set aside. Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. No costs. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE