1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3153 OF 2010 Manoj Punjalal Patel. .. Petitioner Vs Mohammed Ali Yusuf Shaikh & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri Bharat Joshi for the Petitioner. Shri M.A. Haindady for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Petitioner is a third party applicant in a suit filed by the 1st Respondent against the 2nd Respondent. In the said suit, the Petitioner moved a Chamber Summons under Rule 10(2) of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Code ) seeking direction that the Petitioner be impleaded as a party defendant to the suit filed by the 1st Respondent. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected by the Trial Court by holding that the Petitioner has no direct interest. 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that a suit has been filed by the Petitioner for enforcing agreement for sale in respect of the suit property subject matter of the suit and the said suit for specific performance is pending in this Court. He submitted that on the basis of the Chamber Summons taken out by the Petitioner, a direction was issued by this Court to the Court Receiver to file a complaint with the Municipal Corporation for removal of the unauthorized construction made by the 1st Respondent. He submitted that the action of demolition which is subject matter of challenge in the suit filed by the 1st Respondent has been initiated by the 2nd Respondent/Corporation on the basis of a complaint filed by the Court Receiver. He submitted that the Petitioner will be in a position to assist the Court by producing relevant documents to show that the disputed construction is unauthorized. He, therefore, submitted that the Petitioner was a necessary and proper party. 3. I have considered the submissions. As of today, even according to the case of the Petitioner, there is only an agreement for sale executed in favour of the Petitioner. It is a settled position of law in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 that an agreement for sale does not create any interest in the property subject matter of the agreement. The suit for specific performance filed by the Petitioner has not been yet decided. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors., [ (1992)2 SCC 524 ], it cannot be said that as of today the 3 Petitioner has any direct interest in the subject matter of the suit. As stated earlier, the suit filed by the 1st Respondent is for challenging the action of demolition under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The Petitioner will be entitled to claim title only after the suit for specific performance is decreed and the decree is executed. Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji & Ors., [ (1996)5 SCC 379 ] is of no help to the Petitioner in the present case. 4. Hence, no fault can be found with the impugned order by which the Chamber Summons taken out by the Petitioner is dismissed. The Writ Petition is rejected. It is, however, made clear that no adjudication is made either by this Court or by the Trial Court on the rights of the parties relating to the property in dispute. (A.S.OKA, J)