The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

i)

A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or

direction quashing the order dated 02.01.2016 on I.A.No.I

in O.S.No.218/2015 produced at Annexure-D passed by the

Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sankeshwar.

ii)

Issue any other writ or direction or order the petitioner is

found entitled to.

The suit in O.S.No.218/2015 had been filed seeking

for

specific

performance

of

agreement

dated

16.05.2015. In the said suit, the respondents No.3 to

5 had filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to implead

themselves in the proceedings contending that they

have a preemptive right to purchase the property –

subject matter of the suit as they being in joint

- 4 -

possession of the property, and as such they are

required to be brought on record as parties in order

to protect their rights. The said application having

been objected, trial Court allowed an application on

the ground that the presence of respondents No.3 to

5 was required to effectively and completely decide

the lis between the parties, more so when the

respondents No.3 to 5 had stated that they would be

filing a counter claim in the said suit. It is aggrieved

by the same that the petitioner is before this Court.

Smt. Sunanda P. Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the suit being one for specific

performance only the parties to the contract who are

required to be made parties to the proceedings. Third

party who claims any right is not required to be

made a party that apart she submits that any decree

which has passed in O.S.No.218/2015 would only be

binding on the already existing defendants i.e.,

defendants No.1 and 2 therein, respondents No.1

- 5 -

and 2 herein and not against the respondents No.3

to 5. Therefore, respondents No.3 to 5 not being

effected by any order passed are not required to be

made parties to the proceedings. She further submits

that the right claimed by respondents No.3 to 5 is

only a preemptive right and the counter claim is

propose to be filed. The rights of the respondents

No.3 to 5 are not crystallized.

Sri. Sabil Ahmed, learned counsel on would submit

that the respondents No.3 to 5 are in joint

possession with respondents No.1 and 2 and

therefore, their interest would be effected by any

decree which may be passed in the said suit and for

effective resolution of the dispute they are required

to be brought on record as parties-respondents No.3

and 5 which the trial Court is done. In this

background, he submits that this Court ought not to

intercede in the matter and the petition is liable to be

dismissed.

- 6 -

Heard Smt. Sunanda P. patil, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri. A. S. Patil, learned counsel for the

respondents No.3 to 5 and perused papers.

6.

The suit admittedly is one for specific performance.

Respondents No.3 to 5 claim preemptive rights as

regards which they propose to file a counter claim.

The suit for specific performance is to enforce an

agreement entered into between the plaintiffs on the

one hand and respondents No.1 and 2 on the other.

7.

Admittedly, respondents No.3 to 5 are not parties to

the said agreement. The proposed counter claim

would be filed by respondents No.3 to 5 against

respondents No.1 and 2 and not against the

petitioner herein who is the plaintiff therein.

8.

The respondents No.3 to 5 would always be at liberty

to agitate their rights in a separate proceedings, is a

contention of Smt. Sunanda Patil.

9.

The property – subject matter of the claim between

the plaintiffs and respondents No.1 and 2 and the

- 7 -

claim of respondents No.3 to 5 as against the

respondents No.1 and 2 is one and the same.

10. If the submission of Smt. Sunanda Patil is accepted

and respondents No.3 to 5 would file a separate suit

seeking to enforce the preemptive rights as regards

to very same property, the same property would be a

subject matter of two litigations. Albeit for different

r