In a civil application challenging an order allowing impleadment of additional defendants in a writ petition disposed of in applicants' absence, the court rejected the application finding no justification for interference and noting applicants' prior concession.
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
3-CAW-241-13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.241 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.7431 OF 2012
Smt. Maltiben M. Shah and Ors.
....Applicants.
Versus
Tolaram L. Chudiwala and Ors. ...Respondents.
Ms. Nisha Parmar with Ms. Priyal Chheda, advocates for the applicants (Original Respondent Nos.3 to 6).
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani with Mr. Mohit Sahi i/by M/s Mehta and Girdharlal, advocates for the Respondents (Original Petitioners).
CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.
DATED : March 25, 2013.
P.C.:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2 By prayer clause (a), applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 22 days occurred in taking out this application.
By prayer clause (b), applicants seek to recall the order dated 13th September, 2012 passed in the above writ petition.
Shivgan
2
3-CAW-241-13
3 By the said order, writ petition is allowed and the respondents/original petitioners were permitted to implead respondent nos.3 to 6 as party defendants in the suit. The learned counsel for the applicants makes a grievance that this order was passed without hearing them. After perusal of record of the writ petition, it is clear that the present applicants were served with notice of the above writ petition. However, they chose to remain absent. The learned counsel also does not dispute that applicants were served with notice of writ petition. In these circumstances, applicants can not make capital of the fact that the writ petition was disposed of in their absence.
4 On merits also, I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Applicants had given concession for their impleadment as defendants in the suit before the trial Court. Despite that, the trial Court rejected respondents/petitioners' application. There was some delay on part of respondents in taking out application in the trial Court. However, I find that the satisfactory explanation is given in that regard.
5 Taking overall circumstances into consideration, I find no justification to interfere with this civil application. Application is accordingly rejected.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
Shivgan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the lower court allowing impleadment of defendants in the absence of the applicants and on merits.
Whether the concession by applicants for their own impleadment justifies interference with the impugned order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Maltiben M. Shah
Tolaram L. Chudiwala
RANJIT MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
