Dismissed

Lodha Attractive Construction and Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Harjit Singh Sohal and 7 Ors. and Ramesh S. Sakhare

Bombay HC4 Oct 2013CHS/480/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay at Chamber Summons No.480 of 2012 dismissed an application for impleadment as a party defendant, holding a stranger claiming independent title is not a proper party in a specific performance suit as per Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Chamber summons dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the applicant.

Lodha Attractive Construction and Farms Pvt. Ltd. and… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

.. 1 .. 38-CHS-480-12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY .

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.480 OF 2012 IN SUIT NO.1597 OF 2008

¶5

Lodha Attractive Construction and Farms

Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

... Plaintiff

Vs.

Harji Singh Sohal & Ors. ... Defendants And Ramesh Shivling Sakhare … Applicant

¶10

… Applicant

¶11

Mr B.G.Vaidya a/w Satish Kamat for Applicant.

¶12

Mr B.R.Palal i/b M/s Amarchand & Mangaldas for plaintiff. Ms Prachi Kelaskar i/b Sophia Pinto for Defendant No.2.

¶13

CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA J. DATED : OCTOBER 04, 2013.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

By this chamber summons, appilcant seeks impleadment of the applicant as party defendant in the suit based on title in respect of the suit property claimed by the applicant.

¶16

Applicant had filed chamber summons No.900 of 2008 for similar reliefs. By an order dated 8^th November 2011 passed by S.C.Dharmadhikari,

¶17

1/2

¶18

Asmita

¶19

.. 2 .. 38-CHS-480-12

¶20

J., this Court had granted liberty to the applicant to withdraw the said chamber summons with liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings. In stead of

¶21

filing independent proceeding for establishing his claim in respect of the suit property, applicant has filed this chamber summons inter alia praying for the same reliefs.

¶22

Suit is for specific performance of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. In case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors, reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2813 , it is held by the Supreme Court that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, third party/stranger claiming independent title and possession over contracted property is neither necessary nor proper party and, therefore, not entitled to join as party defendant in suit. I am respectfully bound by the Judgment of Supreme Court.

¶23

Chamber summons is thoroughtly misconceived and is dismissed with costs. Applicant is directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the plaintiff within two weeks from today. It is made clear that if any independent proceedings are filed by the applicant, same shall be considered on its own merits.

¶24

( R.D.DHANUKA, J.)

¶25

2/2

¶26

Asmita

Lodha Attractive Construction and Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Harjit Singh Sohal and 7 Ors. and Ramesh S. Sakhare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lodha Attractive Construction and Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Harjit Singh Sohal and 7 Ors. and Ramesh S. Sakhare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Midtown Holding Leasing and Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sharfuddin Unismiyakazi and Orts. and Bhikamdas Gulabchand and Co. and Ors.

Francis James Almeida S/O Charles I. Almeida Vs Rosy C. Almeida Wd/O Charles I. Almeida and 3 Ors.

Atv Projects India Ltd. Vs Central Bank of India

Jayshree Mukesh Gotecha Vs Jayesh Ramniklal Gotecha

Lodha Attractive Construction and Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Harjit Singh Sohal and 7 Ors.

Jeetmal Mangalchand Sakhlecha and Ors. Vs M/S Neelkanth Building Corporation and Ors.