The High Court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the Trial Court allowing impleadment of MIDC in a specific performance suit. The petition was disposed of with liberty to challenge the order after the final decision of the suit.
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
wp1934.11
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1934 OF 2011
_____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders |
Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2011
Heard Advocate Mr. Talhar for petitioner. Petitioner-defendant who is allottee from M.I.D.C. raised objection of non-joinder of M.I.D.C. as party defendant in suit for specific performance filed by present respondent no.1. After getting knowledge of that objection, the respondent no.1 moved application and trial Court allowed him to implead M.I.D.C. as party defendant. That order is questioned before this Court. 2. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. However, with liberty to petitioner to challenge that order after the suit is finally decided, if occasion therefor arises, present Petition is disposed of. No costs.
gas/wp1934.11
(B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court finds jurisdictional error in the Trial Court's permission to implead MIDC as a party defendant in a suit for specific performance.
MIDC Allottee
Suit Plaintiff (Midc)
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
