13-wp-2254-2017.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2254 OF 2017 Shri Kishorelal Chugh … Petitioner vs. Shri Vinod Ramnath Rao and Ors … Respondents Mr. Amey Deshpande for the Petitioner. Mr. Abubakar Patel i/b. J.S. Legal for Respondent No.1. Mr. Vipul Raut i/b. Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for Respondent No.7- CIDCO. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 17th FEBRUARY 2026 ORDER: 1. This petition is filed by the third party applicant to challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting his application for adding him as a party defendant in the suit filed by respondent no.1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff is claiming specific performance of the agreement dated 19th September 2009, allegedly executed by the heirs and legal representatives of the original owner, Krishna Damaji Bhoir. He submits that before the suit was filed tripartite agreement dated 15th June 2010 was executed in favour of the petitioner by the heirs and Page no. 1 of 3 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2026.02.18 13:15:56 +0530 13-wp-2254-2017.doc legal representatives of the original owner and one Jagdamba Dwarikaprasad Gupta. He submits that in the suit filed by the said Gupta, the right, title, and interest in respect of the suit property is transferred in his name. Hence, in view of the tripartite agreement, the petitioner has right in respect of the suit property. He therefore submits that the petitioner would be the necessary party in the suit filed by respondent no.1, seeking specific performance of the agreement in his favour. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 supports the impugned order. He submits that there is no right, title and interest created in favour of the petitioner as there is no substantive registered document transferring right, title and interest in his favour. Respondent no. 1’s claim is for specific performance against the heirs and legal representatives of the original owner. Hence, the petitioner would not be a necessary party to the suit. 4. I have perused the papers of the petition. The plaintiff seeks specific performance of the contract on the ground that the heirs and legal representatives of the original owner executed an agreement dated 19th September 2009. He submits that the original owner expired on 21st November 2001. Hence, it is the plaintiff’s contention that he would be entitled to specific performance of the Page no. 2 of 3 13-wp-2254-2017.doc contract based on the agreement executed by the heirs of the original owner. The trial court held that the plaintiff is the dominus litus and thus, it is for the plaintiff to decide whom to implead as a party to the litigation. The agreement, based on which the petitioner seeks to be impleaded, is not the document of title. There is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the plaintiff. Hence, the trial court held that the petitioner can pursue his own remedy for redressal of the grievance, if any. However, the third party is not entitled to intervene for adding as a party defendant in the suit. 5. In view of the facts as recorded in the preceding paragraphs, no fault can be found in the reasons recorded in the impugned order. There is no illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded in the impugned order, warranting any interference in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition is therefore rejected. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 3 of 3