1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1319 OF 2009 (Kishor Shashikant Siras vs. Smt Shyamala K. Mohandas Nair & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. APRIL 30, 2009. Heard Shri Bade with Shri Shrawane, learned counsel for the petitioner. The present writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 29.9.2008 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 863 of 2004 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for impleading as party came to be dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner that he has an agreement for sale in respect of the suit property which is the subject matter of the above suit wherein Respondent No.1 has sought for a declaration that the sale deed executed by Respondent No.2 from Respondent No.1 on 14.12.2001 and registered at Sr. No. 2677 is illegal, void and inoperative for the reasons stated therein. It is further the case of the petitioner that he is a necessary party to the said suit. The respondents opposed the prayer of the petitioner to be impleaded in the above suit by filing 2 their reply to the said application. The learned Judge by the impugned order dated 29.9.2008, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged before me that the learned Judge erred in passing the impugned order inasmuch as according to the petitioner he is a necessary party to the suit pending before the learned Judge. It is further his case that the learned Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by dismissing the application filed by him under Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, I find that there is no infirmity of any kind committed by the learned Judge while passing the impugned order. Admittedly, on perusal of the application, it is evident that the petitioner has not disclosed in what manner he has interest in the suit property nor furnished the particulars of the alleged agreement for sale. Apart from that the learned Judge while passing the impugned order has stated that the petitioner is free to file a separate suit with regard to his grievance in connection with the suit property. In fact, during the course of hearing of the present petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he had already filed a suit for specific performance. As such, the question of the petitioner being interested party in dispute, does not arise at all. 3 Merely having an agreement for sale does not create any interest in the immovable property as laid down in Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner can neither claim to be a necessary party nor even a proper party in the dispute which is being adjudicated in the above suit. As such, I find that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order and consequently, the present writ petition is summarily dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.