1 wp 7260.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7260 OF 2011 Nitin Vithal Chaudhari and another .. Petitioners Versus Deepak Vishwasrao Bhamre and others .. Respondents Shri A. S. Sawant, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 09TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The respondent No. 1 filed suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 based on agreement of sale of the year 2005. During the pendency of suit present petitioners filed an application for impleading them as party on the ground that on 03.03.2009 the present respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have executed agreement of sale in their favour. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Shri Amol Sawant, the learned counsel for petitioners 2 wp 7260.11 strenuously contends that the agreement has been executed by the defendants in favour of petitioners on 03.03.2009 and thereafter a collusive suit has been filed by the present respondent No. 1 against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on 05.04.2009. The said suit is filed simply to defeat the rights of the present petitioners. The learned counsel contends that even as it is the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 is barred by limitation. The learned counsel further contends that the present petitioners are necessary party in view of the fact that right has been accrued in favour of the petitioners. The Trial Court has not properly considered this aspect and has erroneously rejected the same. 3. The plaintiff is the dominus litis of his case. The petitioners are claiming only on the basis of agreement of sale said to have been executed by the defendants in their favour on 03.03.2009. It is trite law that an agreement of sale does not create any interest in the property. Sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act succinctly lays down this proposition. If the plaintiff succeeds to prove the agreement of 2005, the present petitioners cannot claim any right to purchase the said property. The petitioners have to independently establish their agreement. 3 wp 7260.11 For that purpose the petitioners can take steps available in law, but they cannot be added as party in the present suit, when no interest in the property has been created by virtue of said agreement. In the result the writ petition being sans merit is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11