Dismissed

Bhaskar Bhila Marathe v. Ashok Ramchandra Chhapekar and Others

Bombay HC4 Mar 2013WP/1678/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order dismissing an impleadment application was dismissed. The Court held that no writ jurisdiction existed under Article 227 as the plaintiff had no claim against the applicant, who could seek independent relief in the competent court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner to be impleaded rejected in statutory proceedings; no order as to costs.

Bhaskar Bhila Marathe Vs Ashok Ramchandra Chhapekar and… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.1678/13

¶3

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

 WRIT PETITION NO.1678 OF 2013

¶7

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

Mr.S.P.Brahme, advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶11

 Date : 04.03.2013.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The application filed by the present petitioner to implead him as a party defendant is rejected.

¶15

Mr.Brahme, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is filed by the present Respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the present Respondent Nos.3 to 6 for specific performance of contract and injunction. The said suit is a collusive suit. The present petitioner is in possession of the property being a tenant. Along with relief of specific performance, the plaintiff has also claimed relief of injunction restraining the defendant or anybody on his behalf from obstructing the alleged possession of plaintiff. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner i.e. the third party applicant is in actual, physical possession of the suit property and

¶16

¶17

the petitioner would be concerned with the said relief. As such is a necessary and proper party. The learned counsel submits that the Court below has only considered the aspect of the relief of specific performance and has not considered the other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff.

¶18

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order. The petitioner claims his independent right as a tenant over the property and he is not a party to the suit, the said judgment and decree will not bind the petitioner. If the petitioner claims to be in possession of the suit property, the petitioner has an independent right to claim the relief before the competent Court. The petitioner is not party to the agreement.

¶19

The plaintiff is the dominus litis of his case. No relief is being claimed by the plaintiff against the present petitioner nor any decree passed in the present suit would bind the petitioner.

¶20

In light of the above, no case for interference in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As such the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶22

Dt.04.03.2013. asp/office/wp1678.13

¶23

¶24

W.P.No.1678/13

Bhaskar Bhila Marathe v. Ashok Ramchandra Chhapekar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaskar Bhila Marathe v. Ashok Ramchandra Chhapekar and Others

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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sk. Kalim Sk. Abdul and Anr.

Namdeo Irwante Shirge Vs the State of Mah

State of Maharashtra Vs Deorao G.Phuke(Decd)Ls Kaduba D.Phuke and Orrs

Mangal Namdeo Suryawanshi and Ors. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Govardhan Mohanlal Karva Vs the State Information Commissioner and Ors.

Rafiyoddin Shaikh Biram Khatik and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others