Dismissed

Balabai Jyotiram Eksambe and Ors. v. Bapu Jivbha Ghunke and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Oct 2012WP/5245/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court refused a writ of certiorari dismissing the petition challenging the rejection of an application for impleadment under Order I, Rule 10 CPC in a specific performance appeal. The court held the trial court was correct to refuse impleadment as it would expand the scope of the original contract. No case for interdiction was made out. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; relief of impleadment not granted.

Balabai Jyotiram Eksambe and Ors. Vs Bapu Jivbha Ghunke… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

5245.12.wp

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5245 OF 2012

¶4

Balabai J. Eksambe and Ors ..Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Bapu J. Ghunke andAnr ..Respondents

¶7

Mr. Abhijeet A. Desai,for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Manoj A. Patil,for the Respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT , J. DATE : OCTOBER 19, 2012.

¶10

P. C.:

¶11

1 The order impugned is one rejecting the application filed by the Petitioners under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the Appeal against the decree which has been passed against the brother and son of the Petitioner. The said decree is one for specific performance which is dated 26^th February, 2008. The said application for impleadment has been rejected on the ground that there is delay in filing the said application, that the Applicants are not parties to the contract in question of which specific performance is sought and that though the Applicants claim to be coowners in respect of the suit

¶12

Aswale 1/2

¶13

5245.12.wp

¶14

property, the Applicants have not objected to the permission being granted by the Collector for sale of the suit property of which the Applicants had notice. The learned counsel for the Petitioners would contend that the brothers of the Applicants were allowed to be impleaded and therefore the same analogy ought to have been applied. The brothers to be impleaded as party, but that was during the pendency of the Suit. The instant application as indicated above, has been filed in a pending Appeal which has been filed challenging the decree which has been passed against the brother and son of the Applicant No.1. In my view, therefore, the reasons mentioned by the Trial Court that the scope of a Suit for specific performance cannot be expanded by impleading the parties who are not parties to the original transaction cannot be taken exception to. No case for interdiction is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

Aswale 2/2

Balabai Jyotiram Eksambe and Ors. v. Bapu Jivbha Ghunke and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balabai Jyotiram Eksambe and Ors. v. Bapu Jivbha Ghunke and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Anupama Jaywant Kulkarni and Ors. Vs Evershine Builders, through Partners, Yunus Usmangani Mulla and Ors.

Shri. Raju Lakhomal Hazari Vs Shir. Gopal Lakhomal Hazari

Mr.Pramod Kapadan Puthiyaparambhath Vs Ms. Shobha Sadashiv Joshi

M. v. Holamagi Vs 1. Bhaskar M. Puthranand Ors.

Prashant Prabhakar Patil and Ors. Vs Shri. Anant Nana Raut and Anr.

Balabai Jyotiram Eksambe and Ors. Vs Bapu Jivbha Ghunke and Ors.