IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1677 OF 2008 Shri Sunil Kantilal Dhoka & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Shri Balu Ganpat Kale & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.P.S.Dani for Petitioners. Mr.Madhav Jamdar for Respondent No.1. Mr.M.M.Sathaye for Respondents 5 to 7. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 16, 2009. JANUARY 16, 2009. JANUARY 16, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. : 2 : 3. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik below Exhibits 46 and 49 in Special Civil Suit No.54 of 2007. By the said order, the application preferred by the third party has been allowed and the Plaintiff has been ordered to amend the Plaint by impleading the third party as Defendant Nos.5, 6 and 7. The said third party (newly added Defendants 5 to 7) claim that they have right in the suit property having undivided share therein. Even so, the question is: whether they are parties to the agreement in respect of which relief of specific performance is sought by the Plaintiff. The answer is an emphatic ‘NO’. In that case, the question of third party who are strangers to the agreement in relation to which Suit for specific performance is instituted have no concern with such a Suit. 4. The argument of the third party that they have undivided share in the suit property need not be addressed in the present proceedings. Since the : 3 : third party are not parties to the present Suit, the decision in the present Suit between the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the Respondents/Defendants 1 to 4 who are parties to the agreement, will not bind the third party. Besides, it will be open to the third party to seek appropriate declaration as may be advised in relation to the suit agreement. Those proceedings will have to be proceeded on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. Counsel for the Petitioners has rightly pressed into service decision of our Court in the case of Ajay Kumar v. Smt.Tulsabai & Anr. Ajay Kumar v. Smt.Tulsabai & Anr. Ajay Kumar v. Smt.Tulsabai & Anr. reported in AIR 1973 Bom. 330, reported in AIR 1973 Bom. 330, reported in AIR 1973 Bom. 330, which directly answers the issue on hand. 6. In the circumstances, this Petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court is set-aside and as a consequence the Applications (Exhibits 46 and 49) are rejected with the observations made in the earlier part of this order that the decision in the pending Suit will not bind the third party and it : 4 : will be open to them to question the validity of the suit agreement, if so advised. All questions in that behalf will have to be dealt with in accordance with law on its own merits. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.