Dismissed

Yuvraj Zinga Patil and Another v. Zinga Narayan Patil and Others

Bombay HC12 Feb 2013WP/1200/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought impleadment of petitioners in a pending partition suit as necessary parties. The court held that the petitioners are not parties to the original suit and have already filed a substantive partition suit where their rights would be adjudicated. Consequently, the application for impleadment was rejected and the writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application for impleading the petitioners as parties to the civil suit was rejected; the writ petition was dismissed.

Yuvraj Zinga Patil and Another Vs Zinga Narayan Patil and Others — Partition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 WP 1200.2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1200 OF 2013

¶4

Yuvraj Zinga Patil

¶5

& another .. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Zinga Narayan Patil & Others .. Respondents

¶8

Shri Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioners

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 12th FEBRUARY, 2013.

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

. The application filed by the petitioners for impleading him as party is rejected.

¶12

Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have filed suit for partition and separate possession, and the same is pending. In the said suit the plaintiff and defendants in R.C.S. 33/2005 are also parties. According to the learned counsel, present plaintiffs sought declaration in respect of agreement for sale, so also with regard

¶13

2 WP 1200.2013

¶14

to the agreement in respect of share of well water. The defendants in that suit have filed the counter claim for specific performance. The learned counsel submits that the rights of the present petitioners are also involved in R.C.S. No. 33/2005, in respect of the right in the well water. This aspect has not been considered by the Trial Court. Learned counsel submits that, though the petitioners are not party to the agreement, still the same would affect the rights of the petitioners and so they are necessary parties.

¶15

The decree in a particular suit would bind the parties to the suit and not the persons who are not party to the suit. The petitioners are not party to R.C.S. No. 33/2005.

¶16

The petitioners have already filed suit for partition and separate possession, in which the plaintiffs and defendants of R.C.S. No. 33/2005 are parties. In the suit filed by the petitioners, the defendants therein would be bound by the judgment and decree in the said suit. The suit filed by the petitioners is substantiative suit.

¶17

In the light of above, the impugned order needs no

¶18

3 WP 1200.2013

¶19

interference. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. However,

¶20

there shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶22

SDM*/FEB.13

Yuvraj Zinga Patil and Another v. Zinga Narayan Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvraj Zinga Patil and Another v. Zinga Narayan Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinayak Madhavrao Humbarde Vs Sunita Vinayakrao Humbarde and Anr.

Balasaheb Narsinghrao Kapse Vs Western Region Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Thr Manager and Anr.

Gurusidhappa Shankarappa Malkatte Vs Jagdevi Panditrao Wakade and Ors.

National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Snehal Yeshwant Dhande and Ors.

Vinayak Engineering Works Vs the Tina Oil and Chemicals Ltd. Co. and Anr.

Pandhari Khandu Bhadange and Ors. Vs Sandipan Vithalrao Surwase