D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri Dhruva Narayana, learned counsel representing the plaintiff-opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2. ( 2 ) BY means of this revision, under S. 115 is of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the code, the appellant seeks to challenge the order dated 15/10/1990 rejecting its application for impleadment, as defendant in the Original Suit No. 1563 of 1990 between opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 and the defendant-opposite parties Nos. 3, 4 and 5 pending in the court of Civil Judge, Meerut. The suit is one for injunction against the defendant-opposite parties Nos. 3, 4 and 5 for restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-opposite parties over the vacant land of Bungalow No. (sic ). ( 3 ) THE applicant sought its impleadment to the suit as defendant, principally, on the ground that it had entered into agreement of sale with the defendant-opposite party No. 5, Smt. Prem Lata, through her attorney in respect of a part of the land in suit. ( 4 ) THE court below has found it, as a matter of fact, that the agreement of sale relied upon by the applicant was entered into during the pendency of the suit and that it was not a registered document. It has further been found that no delivery of possession took place in pursuance of the agreement of sale. On these findings, the court below declined to grant the prayer of the applicant for being impleaded. ( 5 ) THE Court below has rightly pointed out that the alleged agreement did not create any interest in the land in suit. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act specifically provides that a contract of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on immovable property which is subject-matter of contract of sale. ( 6 ) FOR what has been said above, the court is clearly of the opinion that in declining to accept the prayer of the applicant for impleadment and rejecting its application therefor by the impugned order, the court below did not commit any such illegality or irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction which may warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. ( 7 ) THE revision is totally devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed. The interim order dated 14/11/1990 shall stand discharged. The applicant is directed to pay to the plaintiff-opposite parties their costs which will include a sum of Rs. 1000. 00 as their counsels fee in this court. Petition dismissed. .