The Bombay High Court exercised civil appellate jurisdiction to dismiss the writ petition, holding that the lower court’s discretionary interlocutory order should not be interfered with.
Dismissal of the Writ Petition No.1861 of 2009.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1861 OF 2009
Daryl P. Mathew. ..Petitioner.
V/s.
Shivmurat B. Singh & Anr. ..Respondents.
Mr.D.A.Joseph i/b. M/s.David & Associates for
petitioner.
Mr.R.S.Apte i/b. Ms. Shaswati S. Sarkar for
Respondent No.2.
CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J
DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2009.
P.C. :
1. Heard Counsel for the parties.
2. The view taken by the Lower Court being a
possible view and moreso being discretionary order
passed at the interlocutory stage, no interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted,
especially in view of the finding of the lower Court
that the Applicant/Respondent No.2 had interest in
the suit property, for which reason, will have to be
termed as proper party, if not necessary party.
Dismissed.
(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's discretionary interlocutory order appointing a proper party.
Daryl P. Mathew
Shivmurat B. Singh
A.M.KHANWILKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court