The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the impleadment of the sister co-owner of the appellants as a proper party in a suit against the Municipal Corporation, which had originated from a complaint by the co-owner.
Writ petition dismissed; impleadment of Respondent No. 3 upheld.
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.
5881.12.wp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5881 OF 2012
Chandulal B. Bedmutha and Anr ..Petitioners
Vs. The Municipal Corporation of City of Solapur and Ors ..Respondents
Mr. Nitin Mulye for the Petitioners.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT , J. DATE : OCTOBER 16, 2012.
P. C.:
1 The Writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur, by which order, the application filed by the Applicant i.e. the Respondent No.3 herein for impleadment came to be allowed and the Petitioners herein who were the original Plaintiffs were directed to implead the Respondent No.3 as party Defendant to the Suit in question.
2 The Suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.205 of 2010 has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the notice issued under Section 478 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The
Aswale 1/3
5881.12.wp
allegation against the Petitioners is that they have carried out unauthorized construction. In the Suit in question the reliefs sought are qua the said notice. The Respondent No.3 herein who is the sister of the Petitioners and is a coowner though the said fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners filed the instant application for her impleadment. In the said application she has averred that she has filed the Suit against the Petitioners for partition and in the event the said Suit is decreed and the property in respect of which the notice has been given by the Corporation comes to her share, then she would be faced with legal complications. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court on the ground that the Applicant being a coowner can be said to be a proper party to the Suit in question. It is required to be noted that in the plaint it is mentioned that the notice has been sent to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 which was replied by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. In paragraph no.2 of the plaint certain allegations have been made against the Respondent No.3. The allegations are to the effect that the Respondent No.3 is instrumental in getting the said notice issued against the said Petitioners. The learned counsel for the Petitioners also does not dispute the fact that the Respondent No.3 has complained to the Respondent No.1 Corporation in respect of the alleged unauthorized construction. Hence considering the fact that the Aswale 2/3
Applicant i.e. the Respondent No.3 is a coowner as also coupled with the fact that the allegations have been made against her in the plaint,as also the action seems to be initiated against the Petitioners pursuant to the complaint made by her, the impleadment of the Applicant in the Suit in question cannot be taken exception to. The Respondent No.3 i.e. the Applicant if not a necessary is a proper party to the Suit in question. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 1971 Mh.L.J. P.64 in the matter of Jivanlal Damodardas Wani v/s Narayan Ukha Sali, in the facts and circumstances of the present case would have no application. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Aswale 3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging the impleadment of a co-owner respondent as a proper party in a civil suit seeking to set aside a demolition notice can succeed.
Whether a sister co-owner who has allegedly initiated the notice action is a necessary or proper party despite allegations in the plaint against her.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jivanlal Damodardas Wani v/s Narayan Ukha SaliDistinguished¶10
1971 Mh.L.J. P.64 · Who else cites this
Chandulal B. Bedmutha and Anr.
The Municipal Corporation of City of Solapur and Ors.
R. M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
