1 WP No.3705/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3705 of 2011 Prasanna Subhash Saykhedkar ... Petitioner versus Shamrao Balwantrao Kedar and ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. C.G. Gavnekar for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 28th June 2011 P.C. 1. Respondent nos.1 to 3 are the original plaintiffs and respondent nos.4 to 12 are the original defendants. Respondent no. 4 is a public trust and respondent nos.5 to 12 are its trustees. 2. Respondent nos.1 to 3 filed a suit against respondent nos.4 to 12 for specific performance of agreement of sale/exchange of the trust property. In the said suit, present petitioner appeared as a third party and made an application for joining him as a party to the suit on the ground that he had a prior agreement of sale in his favour. The court rejected the application. Aggrieved petitioner is before this court. 2 WP No.3705/11 3. Admittedly, petitioner is not a party to the agreement of sale between respondent nos.1 to 3 on the one hand and respondent nos.4 to 12 on the other hand. There is no privity of contract between him and respondent nos.1 to 3 who are the plaintiffs in the suit. The scope of their suit relates only to the question whether they are entitled to a relief of specific performance. By allowing the petitioner to be joined as a party to the suit, scope of the suit would be enlarged from that of a specific performance to a suit regarding title or atleast relating to the rights of the petitioner qua the respondent nos.1 to 3. This cannot be permitted in Kasturi Vs. Ivyamperumal & ors. 2005(3) Mh.L.J 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that scope of a suit for specific performance cannot be enlarged so as to convert it into a suit for title. The trial Judge has correctly applied the said decision to the facts of the case for rejecting the application. No interference is called for. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)