This petition sought intervention in a suit for specific performance, arguing the property was ancestral and the trial court erred in passing judgment without them. The court dismissed the petition.
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
wp11010.10
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11010 OF 2010
_____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders |
Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for the petitioners.
2
wp11010.10
Application of mind by trial Court, therefore does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Petition is, therefore, rejected.
(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE.
13.01.2011 gas/wp11010.10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed jurisdictional error by rejecting the intervention application of the petitioners who claimed share in ancestral property?
Whether a decree in a suit for specific performance can bind non-parties who are not sued?
Petitioners
Respondents
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
