:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2015 OF 2008 Ravindra Maruti Kolvankar and ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Shekar Janardhan Bhingarde and ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.B. Shetye for petitioners. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 01, 2008. Date : April 01, 2008. Date : April 01, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Shetye the learned counsel for the petitioners. The present respondent no.1 has filed Special Civil Suit No. 409 of 2004 in the court of the learned II Joint Civil Judge, S.D. at Kolhapur and the said suit is for specific performance of the contract/agreement for sale dated 3/5/2003 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant i.e. the present respondent no.2. The petitioners claim that they are the brothers of the original defendant and the suit property i.e. flat on the ground floor admeasuring 825 sq.ft. The defendant has agreed to :2: sell the said property to the plaintiff and has already accepted an amount of Rs.4,51,101/- as per the plaintiff. During the trial of the suit, the plaintiff has already completed his evidence and when the suit was listed for recording the evidence of the defendant, the present petitioners filed an application at Exh.40 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC for being added as defendant nos.2 and 3. By the impugned order dated 31/1/2008, the said application has been rejected. 2. The learned Judge of the trial court noted that the suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement dated 3/5/2002 and the present petitioners are not the parties to the said agreement and, therefore, they were not the necessary parties, more so when the plaintiff stated before the trial court that he would confine his prayer/relief only for refund of the earnest amount of Rs.4,51,101/- with interest, if any, and to be recovered from the defendant and he would give up the claim for taking over the suit premises. Mr. Shetye the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that if :3: the relief is restricted only to that extent, the petitioners need not be impleaded as additional defendants and they could not be the necessary parties. 3. Hence, the petition is disposed off with a clarification that the relief claimed in Special Civil Suit No. 409 of 2004 shall be restricted only for refund of the earnest money with interest thereon, if any. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)