Remanded

Mohammed Adil Attarwala v. Madhavlal N.Pittie and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Apr 2006WP/1548/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an application to implead legal heirs of a deceased tenant cannot be dealt with under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh adjudication applying the correct legal proposition.

What did the court decide?

The trial court order dated 3.2.2006 was set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court to be heard within three months.

Mohammed Adil Attarwala Vs Madhavlal N.Pittie and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1548 OF 2006

¶5

 Mohammed Adil Attarwala .. ..Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 Madhavlal N. Pittie & Ors. .. ..Respondents

¶8

 Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar for petitioner

¶9

 Mr.A.K.Abhyankar i/b M/s.D.J.Kamdin & Co.for respondent

¶10

 no.1

¶11

 CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.

¶12

 DATE : 24TH APRIL, 2006

¶13

 P.C.:

¶14

 1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶15

 Perused the record.

¶16

 2. Rule, rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

¶17

 : 2 :

¶18

 3. The petitioner-defendant has preferred this

¶19

 petition against the judgment and order passed by the
 trial court dated 3.2.2006 in Int. Notice No.1500 of
 2001 in R.A.E.Suit No.351/742/1998.

¶20

 4. After hearing both the parties for some time, it
 is obvious that the said interim notice was pertaining to
 the prayer for brining the legal heirs of deceased-tenant
 on record. The learned trial judge, it appears from the
 reasoning adopted by him, was of the view that the
 application could not be under Order 22 Rule 4 nor any
 provisions of Limitation Act would come into play but the
 matter would be governed by the provision of Order 1 Rule
 10 of Civil Procedure Code.

¶21

 5. In my considered view, by any stretch of
 imagination it cannot be said that the application to
 bring the legal heirs of defendant no.1 on record could
 be dealt with under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C.

¶22

 6. Under the circumstances, I have no option but to
 remand the matter back to the trial court to adjudicate
 the notice in proper perspective applying the correct

¶23

 : 3 :

¶24

 proposition of law after giving opportunity to both sides

¶25

 to be heard.

¶26

 7. Hence, rule is made absolute. The order dated

¶27

 3.2.2006 passed by the trial court is hereby set aside.
 The matter is remanded to the trial court with direction
 that the matter should be heard and adjudicated within a
 period of three months from the date of this order. All
 the contentions of both the parties are left open.

¶28

 8. With this direction the petition stands disposed
 of with no order as to costs.

Mohammed Adil Attarwala v. Madhavlal N.Pittie and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Adil Attarwala v. Madhavlal N.Pittie and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imamudin Chitasaheb Khairdi (Decd) by Lrs. Chandubi Immamuddin Khairadi and Ors. Vs Muslim Pachha Peth and Ors.

Sunanda Arvind Kutwal and Anr. Vs Sankanta Prasad Sharma

The Secretary, Janseva Shikshan Mandal and Anr. Vs Nemade Vilas Dhanaji and Ors.

Dr.Moreshwar Govind Oak Vs Ramkisan Ramratan Bhutada

Union Bank of India Vs Darius Kaikhushru Ferzandi and Ors.

Taherali Fazal Ali Vs Hidayatulla Yusufkhan Patel (Decd.)by Lrs.-Attiyabano H.Patel and Ors.