IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 363 OF 2009 SMT. JAYAMALA JAGADALE AND 7 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI. GAUTAM RAMANBAI PATEL AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr. A. R. Kantak, Advocate for Respondent no.3. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 12th November, 2009 P.C. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks deletion of the Respondent no.2 from the array of Respondents. Respondent no.2 is accordingly deleted at the risk of the Petitioners. 2. This Petition takes exception to the Order dated 07.02.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim, by which Order, the application filed by the Petitioners i.e. the defendant nos. 4 to 9 for their deletion from the array of defendants to the said suit was rejected. 3. The suit is filed by the respondent no.1 herein for specific performance of an Agreement dated 17.06.2006 and an addendum dated 11.01.2007. It is not disputed that the defendant nos. 4 to 9 are confirming parties to the said Agreement. Apart from specific performance, the defendant no.1 has alternately prayed for damages. The Petitioners herein who were the defendant nos. 4 to 9, have filed the application on the ground that they had relinquished their right in favour of the persons against whom specific performance is being sought. The Trial Court considered the said application and, on the ground that there was no dispute that the defendant nos. 4 to 9 were parties to the said Agreement, held that the said defendants were necessary parties. 4. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the Petitioners by relying upon the decision reported in AIR 1973 Bombay 330 (E. Ajay Kumar vs. Tulsibai & anr.), in Para 10 thereof, that third parties who have no connection with the property in question, cannot be roped in a lis between two parties one of whom is seeking specific performance against the other. The facts in the said case were that a third party wanted to set up title against the defendants therein. It is in the said context that the said Judgment held that a third party claiming title cannot be joined as parties in a suit for specific performance. Such is not the case in the instant matter as, admittedly, the defendant nos. 4 to 9 are confirming parties to the said Agreement. 5. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned Order passed by the Trial Court. The Order does not suffer from any legality or infirmity for this Court to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*