1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1155 OF 2009 M/s.Paraamursh Consultant Pvt. ..Petitioner Ltd. V/s. The bank of Maharashtra & ors ..Respondents Mr.J.P.Cama, Senior Advocate i/b.M/s.Apte & Co., for the petitioner Mr.Jaideep Mitra a/w Mr.Sachin Joshi, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr.S.Purohit i/b.Mr.Sanket Sethia, Advocate, for respondent No.2 CORAM : J. N. PATEL & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition challenges the Order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Respondent No.2 is the Borrower and Respondent No.1 is the Creditor. Respondent No.2 had borrowed certain sum from the Respondent No.1 2 and after some time his Account with the Creditor was declared as non-performing asset. The dispute went before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. There was a settlement between the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 in O.A.No. 375 of 2004. However, the said Compromise Petition could not be filed before Debts Recovery Tribunal and the amount could not be paid. The Respondent No.1  bank, therefore, decided to take action under the said Act. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that the present Petitioner approached the said bank for purchase of the said property. There were negotiations between the said bank and the Petitioner. There was also an exchange of letters evidencing the Agreement to Sell the said properties at a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-. The Debts Recovery Tribunal was moved for directing the Creditor  Bank to act upon the Agreement between the parties which was evidenced by exchange of letters. It was found by the Debts Recovery Tribunal that the 3 present Petitioner did not have any locus to file an application at all. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner had contended before us that the Petitioner is certainly a person, who is aggrieved and can be called a third party particularly, under Section 17(3) of the said Act which shows that any person including a Borrower can prefer an Appeal under Section 17(3) of the said Act. He also invited our attention to the Judgment in the matter of UCO BANK Versus Kanji Manji Kothari & Co. & ors, reported in 2008(3) Bom.C.R.290. This Court had observed that under Section 17(3) any person including a Borrower can prefer an Appeal and this includes even a third party. There is no doubt that the third party has a right to prefer an Appeal under Section 17(3). 4 However, in the instant case, the Petitioner cannot be said to be third party at all. To us the third party means a person having some interest in the property sought to be sold. There is merely an Agreement, if at all, between the parties to sale the property. An Agreement does not confer right, title and interest in the prospective purchase. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the present Petitioner has any kind of right and can be brought within the meaning of third party under the said Act. Therefore, under Sections 13 & 17 of the said Act, those persons having interest in the property sought to be sold can approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and therefore the persons having no interest in the property cannot have locus standi to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal at all. It may also be observed here that the Agreement that is sought to be enforced is between the Creditor and the present Petitioner. The Creditor does not have right, 5 title and interest in the property. It vests in the Debtor. Therefore, had the Agreement been between the present Petitioner and the Debtor, the Petitioner could have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In the circumstances, we do not find any subtance in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. (J. N. PATEL, J.) (C. L. PANGARKAR, J.)