1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 447 OF 2009 Maharashtra State Board of WAkfs .. PETITIONER VERSUS S. Fakir Mohd. S/o Sk. Bashiruddin & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. M.BW. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.T. Ghute, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. G.J. Kore, Advocate for respondent no. 3. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 19th MARCH, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Application presented by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment in the pending suit ha been turned down by the trial court and the said order is impugned in this petition. 2 Respondent no. 1 instituted a suit against respondent nos. 2 and 3 being Spl. Civil Suit no. 78/2004 claiming specific performance of agreement dt. 16-4-2004 in respect of land survey no. 339/9 admeasuring 2 acr5es situate at Osmanabad. In the suit plaintiff claims that the defendants are 2 the owners of the property and they have agreed to alienate the said property in favour of the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-. It is contended that plaintiff paid Rs.50,000/- towards earnest amount and subsequently further amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid to defendants. The balance amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed. As the defendants refused to perform their part of the agreement, plaintiff was constrained to present the suit claiming specific performance of agreement. 3 Application came to be presented by the petitioner herein praying for impleadment in the suit. According to the petitioner, the property belongs to the Wakf board and as such petitioner is the necessary party to the suit. Dispute involved in the matter is in respect of specific performance of the agreement. Plaintiff claims that the defendants are the owners of the property and requested to grant decree of specific performance of agreement and, in the alternative, the plaintiff has prayed for the relief of refund of consideration amount. Petitioner herein is admittedly not party to the agreement. Any decree that would be passed in the suit would obviously not bind the rights of the petitioner / third party applicant herein. In this view of the matter, considering the fact that the suit is based on 3 agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants to which the petitioner herein is not a party, it cannot be said that the petitioner is either a necessary or proper party to the suit. Trial court has taken a reasonable view of the matter and has passed the order which cannot be said to be erroneous. In exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for in respect of the interlocutory order passed during the pendency of the suit. Petition therefore stands rejected. 4 In view of dismissal of petition, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp447.09.odt