1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8320 OF 2009 Pradeep Sakharam Shetye .. Petitioner versus Prakash Vasant Kolwalkar & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Deepa Kamath for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5th October 2009. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of the Agreement for Sale executed by 1st and 2nd respondents (1st and 2nd defendants). In the said suit 3rd respondent who is an advocate has been impleaded as a party defendant. By the impugned order passed on the application made by the 3rd respondent, the trial Court has exercised power under Rule 10(2) of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by ordering deletion of the name of the advocate. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the 3rd respondent who is an advocate had published a public notice dated 25th July 2008. She pointed out that though the said notice related to the suit property, the 3rd respondent did not disclose the name of his client. The 2 notice was calling for the objections to the sale transaction entered into by his client. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as an application for temporary injunction is filed by the petitioner, the name of the client of the 3rd respondent on whose behalf he had published the public notice will be relevant. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The suit is for specific performance of Agreement for Sale dated 3rd January 2006 allegedly executed by the 1st and 2nd respondents in favour of the petitioner. It appears that the 3rd respondent published a public notice in which he stated that his clients intended to deal with the suit property. In the plaint, a specific assertion has been made that though relief has not been claimed against the 3rd respondent, he has been impleaded as a party as he has not disclosed the name of the client on whose behalf he had published the public notice. Considering the scope of suit for specific performance, it is obvious that the 3rd respondent-advocate was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. If the petitioner apprehends that the 1st and 2nd respondents will create third party interests, the petitioner can always apply for appropriate interim relief against the said respondents. No case is made out for interference with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)