1 W.P. 9715.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9715 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders ................................ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17/12/2011. Mr. N.D.Kendre, Advocate for the Petitioner. ..................... PER COURT : 1. The present respondent no. 1 has filed Suit for partition and separate possession against respondent nos. 2 to 10. During the pendency of the Suit, the present petitioner filed application for addition of party defendant on the count that respondent no. 10 has executed agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner. The said application is rejected by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 2. Mr. Kendre, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the petitioner has valid agreement of sale executed by the defendant no. 9/ present respondent no. 10 in respect of the half share. In such circumstances, the petitioner has right to purchase the said property. It is because of the interim orders in the Suit, the petitioner can not get the 2 W.P. 9715.2011 sale deed executed. The petitioner has every right to protect the rights created in his favour pursuant to the agreement of sale. No prejudice would be caused if the petitioner is added as party. 3. The plaintiff is the dominus litis of his case. The Suit is merely a Suit for partition and separate possession of undivided share of the plaintiff. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act lays down that the contract for the same does not create any interest in the property. The petitioner is claiming on the basis of the agreement of sale. There are no other proceedings pending. The petitioner under law has a right to file a Suit for specific performance and claim such further relief in the said Suit as is laid down U/s 22 of the Specific Relief Act. 4. In view of the fact that no interest in the property has been created in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the contract for sale, the trial court has not committed any error while rejecting the said application. 5. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 9715.2011 3 W.P. 9715.2011