IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 22.10.2008. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9017/2008 Nawal Modani Vs. ADJ (Fast Track), Jaipur District & Ors. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Manoj Bhardwaj, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.4.2008 by which the application filed by the petitioner under order 1 rule 10 C.P.C. For being impleaded as a party to the suit has been dismissed. I have perused the impugned order and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is claiming his right on the basis of the alleged 'Samjhota Patra' compromise entered into between the applicant petitioner and the plaintiff on 24.6.2006. The aforesaid compromise has not been recorded in any court proceedings or in the course of any suit etc. and has been entered into allegedly by the applicant and plaintiff during the pendency of the present suit. The present suit is in respect of the agreement for specific performance agreement/sale entered between the plaintiff and the defendant on 18.12.2004. That is prior to any agreement or compromise entered into between the applicant petitioner and the plaintiff. So far as the plaintiff is concerned he shall acquire his right in the property only in case the decree is passed in his favour for specific performance against the defendant on the basis of the agreement dated 18.12.2004 which is said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The crucial question which is required to be decided in the suit is whether the defendant executed the agreement dated 18.12.2004 in favour of the plaintiff and further whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek a decree for specific performance of the contract/agreement in his favour on the basis of the aforesaid the agreement dated 18.12.2004. So far as the defendant is concerned the applicant petitioner has not claimed any right against the defendant as the defendant has not entered into any agreement with the applicant. The applicant entered into an agreement allegedly with the plaintiff during pendency of the suit the alleged compromise is un stamped and un registered to which the defendant is not a party. Whatever rights the applicant claims shall arise if at all only if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit and the plaintiff in his reply to the application under order 1 rule 10 C.P.C. decided the petitioner claim. Even in the application under order 1 rule 10 C.P.C. The petitioner applicant has not given any date of details of the alleged compromise. In that view of the matter the present suit can not be altered from a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 18.12.2004 entered between the plaintiff and the defendant to determination of the interse rights of the applicant and the plaintiff. In the facts and circumstances therefore I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS