Allowed

Rama Laxman Bhosale v. Balu Dattu Bhosale and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Dec 2007WP/5848/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in a writ petition, granted permission to the petitioner to join as a party defendant to an existing suit and directed the Trial Court to consider consolidating both suits for a joint decision.

What did the court decide?

Permission to join as a party defendant to Suit No. 699 of 2006 granted; directions for consideration of suit consolidation.

Rama Laxman Bhosale Vs Balu Dattu Bhosale and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

 Writ Petition No.5848 of 2007

¶3

 Rama Laxman Bhosale ..Petitioner

¶4

vs.

¶5

 Shri Balu Dattu Bhosale
 and others ..Respondents

¶6

 Shri S.A.Savant for petitioner.
 Shri R.A.Thorat for respondent nos.1 and 2.
 Shri P.B.Shah for respaondent nos. 5 and 7.

¶7

CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIARI J.
5th December,2007

¶8

P.C.

¶9

 1. In the peculiar facts of this case and

¶10

 considering that this Court has while issuing
 notice made prima facie observations, interest

¶11

 of justice would be subserved if the order under

¶12

 challenge is set aside and the application of

¶13

 the petitioner before me to join himself as
 party defendant to the suit no.699 of 2006 is

¶14

 granted. However, mere permission to join does

¶15

 not mean that the plaintiff and defendants to
 that suit are admitting the claim of the present
 petitioner or that the suit would proceed on the
 basis that he has some right in the subject

¶16

 property. All such pleas are expressly kept

¶17

 open. As to what interest the petitioner has

¶18

 must be decided upon oral and documentary
 evidence led. This order is passed only to do

¶19

 away any fears or apprehension on the part of
 the present petitioner that his suit being prior
 in point of time, its outcome would be adversely
 affected in case the suit no.699 of 2006 process
 or is lateron compromised. The Trial Court to
 consider consolidation of both suits and decide
 the same together as well. The application of
 the petitioner in suit no.699 of 2006 being
 Exh.46 stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
 Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶20

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)

Rama Laxman Bhosale v. Balu Dattu Bhosale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Laxman Bhosale v. Balu Dattu Bhosale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janata Sahakari Bank Limited Vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies and Ors.

Shri Anil B. Jobanputra Vs Shri Suryakant B. Jobanputra

Maruti Bharamana Patil Vs Vanita Maruti Patil and Anr.

Rajeshree Parisa Wategave Vs Special Recovery Officer - Dr.Annasaheb Chougule Urban Co.Op.Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Sangeeta Kadam Vs Tagore Nagar Shanti Sadan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Smt. Hirabai Laxmanrao Kadam and Ors. Vs Smt. Sandhya Vijay Kadam and Ors.