1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10909 OF 2009 Ms Alka M. Diwan ...Petitioner vs. Om Hari Centers Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Tanaji Mhatugade i/b Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh for the petitioner CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 7, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has rejected the application made by the petitioner under Rule 10(2) of the Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. 2 The 1 st respondent has filed a suit for specific performance against 2 nd to 4 th respondents. The suit is for enforcing the alleged agreement for sale dated 25 th January 2005 allegedly executed by the 2 nd respondent in favour of the 1 st respondent. The petitioner is admittedly a stranger to the contract which is sought to be enforced by filing a suit. The case of the petitioner made out in the application is that the petitioner has a charge on the suit property. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition is that the transaction between the petitioner and the 1 st respondent is in the nature of a mortgage. 2 He, therefore, submitted that if the decree for specific performance is passed, the petitioner will be adversely affected. 3 The law on this aspect is very well settled. The petitioner being a stranger to the contract which is sought to be enforced is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit for specific performance. The petitioner can always file a separate proceedings to enforce her rights. Moreover, the decree, if any, passed in the suit for specific performance will not bind the petitioner. Hence, no case for interference is made out. 4 Subject to what is observed above, Petition is rejected. JUDGE