1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3214 OF 2010 Prashant Suresh Shette & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Hemlata Anil Parmar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Y.K.Deshpande for the petitioners. Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27th April 2010. P.C.: . By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are the third parties to the suit filed by the 1st respondent have taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 3rd April 2010 passed by the trial Court. By the impugned order, an application made by the petitioners under Rule 10(2) of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected. The 1st respondent has filed a suit for specific performance against 2nd to 6th respondents. The suit is for specific performance of agreement dated 16th March 2006 executed by 2nd to 5th respondents in favour of the 1st respondent. The agreement relates to plot No.9 which is more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The present petitioners are claiming on the basis of an agreement dated 27th August 2008 which is in the nature of agreement for development excuted by 2nd to 5th respondents in their favour. The learned trial Judge placing reliance 2 on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors. (AIR 2005 SC 2813) came to the conclusion that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the result of the suit will directly affect the petitioners. He submitted that when the alleged agreement on the basis of which suit has been filed by the 1st respondent was executed, the plot was not even allotted and the petitioners have entered into agreement of development after the allotment of the suit plot. He submitted that the petitioners have been placed in possession of the suit plot and therefore they are necessary and proper parties to the suit. 3. I have considered the submissions. As stated earlier, the suit is for specific performance of alleged agreement for transfer of the suit plot executed on 16th March 2006 by the 2nd to 5th respondents in favour of the 1st respondent. As the prayer in the suit is only for the specific performance, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kasturi (supra) the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit, especially, when the petitioners are claiming through 2nd to 5th respondents on the basis of an agreement for development which has been executed subsequent to the alleged suit agreement. Notwithstanding the rejection of the application for impleadment, the remedies of the petitioners for enforcing their rights are always open. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is 3 made out. Writ petition is rejected. It is made clear that no adjudication has been made by this Court on the rights allegedly claimed by the petitioner. (A.S.OKA,J)