The applicant-Bhimshankar is claiming his right whatsoever, on the basis of an agreement to sell executed by Valaram in his favour. Firstly , an agreement to sell does not give any absolute right qua the property to the applicant. Secondly , any right even if available to the applicant by virtue of the said agreement to sell, would be available to him only qua the vendor i.e. Valaram. He cannot claim any right against the plaintiffs who were the strangers to the contract/agreement to sell entered into between him and Valaram. Thirdly , it is an admitted fact that the present applicant was aware of the pendency of the present litigation between the plaintiffs and Valaram. His case is that Valaram had promised to pursue the litigation with full diligence and to execute the sale deed in his favour after the proceedings been decided in his favour. Meaning thereby, he, in spite of being aware of the pending litigation between the parties entered into an agreement with Valaram with open eyes. It is also admitted on record that the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was preferred by the applicant only after the compromise/settlement document been filed before the Court by both the parties. Therefore also, the cause of action if any available to the present applicant would be only against Valaram. The challenge to the impguned decree in favour of the plaintiffs cannot be permitted at the behest of the present applicant, who cannot be held to be aggrieved of any action of them.
