IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITON No. 5737 of 2011 Surjitsingh M. Multani and another. Vs. Smt. Vaishali K. Chaware and another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.S. Dhore, learned counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 28 th November, 2011. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial court on 10.8.2011, rejecting an application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for joinder as party defendants. The respondent no.1 had filed a suit against the respondent no.2 for partition and separate possession. In that suit, the petitioners filed an application for intervention on the ground that they entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent no. 2 on 29.6.2002, thereby agreeing to purchase a part of the suit land. The petitioners claim that they had an interest in the property and it was necessary for the court to permit their joinder in the suit for effectively deciding the questions involved in the suit. The trial court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners as the petitioners were not necessary parties to the suit as the suit could have been effectively decided in their absence. The respondent no.1-plaintiff had not prayed for any relief against the petitioners. The suit was for partition and separate possession and as no interest could be created in favour of a party merely on an execution of an agreement of sale, the trial court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners. The petitioners were neither necessary parties nor proper parties to the suit. No fault can be found with the impugned order dated 10.8.2011 so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.