Dismissed

Shri. Anil Nemichand Bafna and Ors. v. Shri. Sadashiv Ganpat Ranvare (Since Decd) through Lrs, Ramesh Sadashiv Ranvare and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Apr 2013WP/2755/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the rejection of their application for impleadment of a subsequent purchaser in a specific performance suit. The High Court held that the subsequent transfer was barred by lis pendence under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, making the transferee unnecessary, and dismissed the writ petition allowing the suit to proceed expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition for impleadment of third party transferee dismissed; writ petition dismissed.

Shri. Anil Nemichand Bafna and Ors. Vs Shri. Sadashiv… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-2755.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2755 OF 2013

¶4

Anil Nemichand Bafna & ors. : Petitioners. Versus Sadashiv Ganpat Ranvare & ors. : Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Abhishek M Pungliya for the Petitioners.

¶6

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 29^th April 2013

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1 The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dted 21/11/2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune by which order the Application Exhibit 475 filed for impleadment of the subsequent purchaser and for amendment came to be rejected.

¶9

2 The suit in question has been filed by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs for specific performance. It appears that pending the suit there is an order of injunction which is operating. The third party one M/s. Pinac Housing Private Limited in whose favour the Defendant Nos.5 to 7 had created interest in respect of the suit property filed an application for its impleadment. The said application was not accompanied by any document which was executed by the Defendant Nos.5 to 7. The application therefore came to be rejected by the Trial Court.

1 of 4

lgc

wp-2755.13

3 The Plaintiff it seems applied for the sale deed dated 1/2/2012 and on such sale deed being available found that the Defendant Nos.5 to 7 had transferred the part of the suit property to the said M/s. Pinac Housing Private Ltd, and therefore filed an application in question for impleadment of the said third party M/s. Pinac Housing Private Limited. The said application has been rejected for two fold reasons; firstly that the application of the third party which is for being impleadment was rejected and secondly on the ground that the Plaintiff has registered the lis-pendence, the subsequent transfer would therefore be subject to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act the transferee is therefore not a necessary party to the suit.

¶14

4 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Shri Pungliya would seek to rely upon two judgments of two Learned Single Judges of this Court; first of which is reported in 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 435 in the matter of Krishnan Venugopal v/s. Antonio Joa a Braganza and ors and the second reported in AIR 2002 Bombay 408 in the matter of Rajendra Kantilal Dalal v/s Bombay Builders Co. (P). Ltd and others, as also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005(4) Mh.L.J. 330 in the matter of

¶15

Chitralekha Builders and another v/s. GIC Employees Sonal Vihar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and others as also the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1973 SC 655 in the matter of Dwarka Prasad Singh

2 of 4

lgc

wp-2755.13

and others v/s. Harikant Prasad Singh and others in support of his contention that the application Exhibit 475 for impleadment of the third party being the subsequent purchaser ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court. In so far as judgments in the case of Krishnan Venugopal and in the case of Chitralekha Builders are concerned, the said cases concern the application filed by a third party to join as a party to the suit. It is in the said context that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench adjudicated upon the issue on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In so far as the judgment in Rajendra Kantilal Dalal's case is concerned, the said judgment concerns the relief which could be sought against the subsequent purchaser and is not a judgment for the proposition as to whether the third party purchaser could be impleaded by the Plaintiff in the suit filed by him for specific performance. In so far as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dwarka Prasad Singh is concerned, the said case concerned the impleadment of the vendor of the Plaintiff as the suit in question was filed for specific performance against the subsequent purchaser. It is in the said fact situation that the Apex Court allowed the application.

¶20

5 In the light of the fact that in the instant case, the third party’s application itself was rejected and considering the fact that the Plaintiff has already registered a lis-pendence, the observation of the Trial Court that the subsequent transfer would be covered by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property

3 of 4

lgc

wp-2755.13

Act, therefore, cannot be faulted with. There is therefore no warrant to implead the third party transferee as party to the suit. The suit in question is of the year 1990 and therefore ought to be tried and disposed of expeditiously.

¶25

6 In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

[R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶27

4 of 4

¶28

lgc

Shri. Anil Nemichand Bafna and Ors. v. Shri. Sadashiv Ganpat Ranvare (Since Decd) through Lrs, Ramesh Sadashiv Ranvare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Anil Nemichand Bafna and Ors. v. Shri. Sadashiv Ganpat Ranvare (Since Decd) through Lrs, Ramesh Sadashiv Ranvare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manikbai Anant Thakur and Others Vs M/S. Anurag Builders and Others

Shri. Bhiva Kashinath Mhatre Vs Shri. Brijbhushan Shivshankar Gupta and Anr.

Dinesh Mahadev Kubal Vs Dhananjay Balkrishna Gondkar and Ors.

Gorakh Murlidhar Kadam and Others Vs Shri Parshwanath Digmabar Jain Mandir Trust Indapur

M/S. Kalpasutra Developers Vs Shri. Vivek Maruti Patil and Ors.

Arun Madhukar Kerkar Vs Chandrakant Shankar Patkar and Ors.