:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1547 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 1547 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 1547 OF 2009 Smt. Niru Dayabhai Parmar. ... Petitioner. V/s. Shri Rakesh Rajendrakumar Agarwal & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Krunal Damle i/b. A.G. Damle for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 21ST 21ST 21ST APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . When this matter was placed before me yesterday, despite appearance of the Respondents’ Advocates was shown, none appeared on their behalf. The matter was adjourned till today and even today none appears. I did not have the benefit of any arguments on their behalf. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that one Rakesh R. Agarwal filed a Suit against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the Trial Court claiming specific performance of an Agreement to Sell an immovable property. This Agreement is dated 23rd June 2006. He claimed the declaration that this Agreement is valid, subsisting and binding on the Defendants to the Suit and they should be directed to specifically perform the said Agreement. This Suit was filed on 22nd July 2007. :2: 3. In the Written Statement that was filed after the Suit Summons was served, the Defendants stated before the Trial Court that the Suit property is already sold under a Registered Sale Deed to one Niru Dayabhai Parmar (the Petitioner before me). 4. It was stated by the Defendants that Petitioner Niru Parmar is a necessary party to the Suit and therefore, she should be impleaded as such. 5. Considering the fact that there was a prior transaction with the Defendants, the Petitioner - Applicant filed an application on 21st June 2008 requesting that she should be impleaded as a party Defendant to the Suit. She stated that the Defendants to the Suit had entered into an Agreement dated 22nd March 1989 with one Harisharan Jaiswal and two Others for sale of the suit property. The Defendants to the Suit received consideration under this agreement and executed a letter of possession and a Power of Attorney. The said Hari Jaiswal and two others, thereafter, sold this property to the Petitioner - Applicant and subsequent thereto, a Sale Deed has been executed in her favour. The said Harisharan Jaiswal and two Others are shown as the confirming parties in the relevant documents. Reliance is placed upon a Power of Attorney dated 10th August 2007 executed by the Defendants to the present Suit in favour of Harisharan Jaiswal and two Others. It is, therefore, that further :3: steps have been taken and that is how if the Petitioner - Applicant is not impleaded as a party Defendant to the Suit, she would suffer grave loss and injury, is the basis of the request made for joinder of the Petitioner. 6. The Application was opposed by the First Respondent - Original Plaintiff and the Trial Court, by an order dated 16th December 2008 has dismissed the Petitioner’s application. This order is under challenge in the instant Writ Petition. 7. After hearing the Petitioner’s Advocate at some length and perusing the impugned order with his assistance, so also a decision reported in (2007) 10 SCC (2007) 10 SCC (2007) 10 SCC page page page 82 (Sumtibai & Ors. V/s. Paras Finance Co. regd. 82 (Sumtibai & Ors. V/s. Paras Finance Co. regd. 82 (Sumtibai & Ors. V/s. Paras Finance Co. regd. Partnership Partnership Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj.) Through Mankanwar (Smt) Firm Beawer (Raj.) Through Mankanwar (Smt) Firm Beawer (Raj.) Through Mankanwar (Smt) w/o. w/o. w/o. Parasmal Chordia (dead) & Ors.), Parasmal Chordia (dead) & Ors.), Parasmal Chordia (dead) & Ors.), I am of the opinion that no interference is necessary in Writ Jurisdiction with the impugned order. 8. Admittedly, on the showing of the Petitioner - Applicant title to the property it is not through the Defendants to the Suit but others namely Harishsharan Jaiswal and two Others, who are confirming parties. There are series of documents purportedly executed allegedly in favour of the Applicant, as authority was given to her by these persons. It is not as if the Applicant - Petitioner is without any remedy. Based upon her claim and title, :4: she can independently file a Suit impleading therein all parties including her vendors and those claiming to be in possession or any right in the suit property. This is not a case where, as held by the Supreme Court, that parties to the Suit (Original Defendants) alone have created any third party rights in favour of the Petitioner - Applicant. Besides them, there are some others who are parties to the transaction between the Petitioner - Applicant and the Defendants. In these circumstances, assuming she has a prior title to the property, she must assert it independently. This is not a case of any prejudice being caused to the Petitioner - Applicant or a case made out of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. The Trial Judge is right in his conclusion that for passing an effective decree in the Suit, it is not necessary that the Petitioner - Applicant should be made a party Defendant. For all these reasons, the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is distinguishable. No interference is necessary with the order of the Trial Court. The Petition is dismissed. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)