Allowed

Pandharinath Chindha Patil v. Varsha Sanjay Patil

Bombay HC28 Aug 2012WP/3811/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a plaintiff against defendants who alienated suit property during the pendency of a possession suit, the High Court allowed the plaintiff's application to implead the purchaser as a necessary party. The court held that binding the purchaser to the decree makes the impleadment expedient under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and the application [Exh. 16] filed by the plaintiff to implead the third party were allowed.

Pandharinath Chindha Patil Vs Varsha Sanjay… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P. 3811.2012 - [ J ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3811 OF 2012

¶4

Pandharinath Chindha Patil

¶5

Age : 62 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : At Kalkhede, Tq. & Dist. : Dhule. .... PETITIONER

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

Sau. Varsha Sanjay Patil Age : 41 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : Plot No. 27, Janaki Nagar, Deopur, Dhule. .... RESPONDENT

¶8

Mr. Mukul S.Kulkarni, Advocate holding for Mr. A.H.Koralkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Shrikant S.Patil, Advocate for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 28/08/2012.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶11

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶12

The present petitioner has filed Suit for possession against

¶13

the present respondent/defendant. During the pendency of the Suit, the petitioner filed an application for impleading third party as party

¶14

2 W.P. 3811.2012 - [ J ]

¶15

defendant in the Suit on the ground that the defendant during the pendency of the Suit, alienated the suit property to the proposed party i.e. Shobha Sukdeo Patil. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶16

Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed party is a necessary party. The Suit of the plaintiff is for possession. If the Suit of the plaintiff is decreed, then it will not be possible to execute the decree against the third party, which may raise objections. Even the possession would be handed over to the third party, by which the multiplicity of litigation would be created.

¶17

Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the third party is not necessary party for adjudication of the dispute. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sarvinder Singh V/s Dalip Singh reported in 1996 ( 5 ) SCC – 539 . According to the learned counsel, when the proposed party is not a necessary party nor proper party, he is not required to be added and the trial Court has rightly rejected the application.

¶18

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Order.

¶19

3 W.P. 3811.2012 - [ J ]

¶20

It is true that the proposed party may not throw light on the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant and the purchaser pendente-lite is bound by the decree passed. It also can not be lost sight that the proposed purchaser is a representative in the interest as per the provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and if the decree that is passed will be binding on the proposed party, then it would be expedient for the purchaser to put-forth his case, more particularly, when the plaintiff has come-forward to add proposed purchaser as a party.

¶21

Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facets, I am inclined to allow the application [ Exh. 16 ] filed by the plaintiff .

¶22

In the result, the application [ Exh. 16 ] filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶23

Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however

¶24

with no order as to costs.

¶25

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ]

¶26

KNP/W.P. 3811.2012 - [ J ]

Pandharinath Chindha Patil v. Varsha Sanjay Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandharinath Chindha Patil v. Varsha Sanjay Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annasaheb Ganpatrao Dighe and Anr. Vs Bandu Ganpatrao Dighe and Ors.

Krishna Gyanuji Kharat Vs Jalna Education Soc. and Ors.

Bapurao Bhaguji Agle Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Lilabai Shivajirao Gaikwad and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rafat Hussain Ansari Mushtaq Hussain Ansari and Ors. Vs Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corp. and Ors.

Gajabsingh Rajaram Ghusinge Vs Mahasingh Chagansingh Bahure and Anr.