A civil suit was dismissed because plaintiffs Nos. 1-3 appeared unrepresented while their counsel, without instructions to prosecute, indicated the opposing group of plaintiffs (Nos. 4-8) did not wish to continue. Consequently, the suit could not proceed.
Suit dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.
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.
10-S143-10.DOC
Agk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 143 OF 2010
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1235 OF 2010
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1910 OF 2011
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.2123 OF 2011
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.492 OF 2012
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO.177 OF 2014
Shalini Sumant Raut & others…Plaintiffs
Versus
Milind Sumant Raut and others…Defendants
Mr. V.M. Mahajani/by M/s. Divekar & Co., for the Plaintiffs Nos. 4
to 8.
Mr. Vinay Bhate, for Defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 5.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 4th March 2014
PC:-
1.As noted in the order dated 20th January 2014, there was
some discord between the eight plaintiffs inter se. One group of the
1 of 2
10-S143-10.DOC
plaintiffs sought to be separately represented from another. As that
is impermissible, I directed that this issue must be resolved by the
plaintiffs inter se by today. Today, the suit is listed for an exparte
decree.
2.M/s. Divekar & Co. have so far filed a vakalatnama only on
behalf of plaintiffs No. 4 to 8. They have received no instructions
from plaintiffs No.1 to 3 to represent them. In itself, this is not a
state of affairs that is permissible. The plaintiffs cannot be
permitted to be represented by two sets of advocates. One of the
two groups must be transposed as party-defendants. Now M/s.
Divekar & Co. have instructions from those of the plaintiffs who
have authorized them to file a vakalatnama that they, i.e., plaintiffs
Nos. 4 to 8, do not wish to prosecute the suit.
3.The result is that the suit is today only in the names of
plaintiffs No.1 to 3. These plaintiffs are unrepresented. The names
of the plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 are called out. None appears. The suit is
dismissed. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications do
not survive and are disposed of as such.
4.For the record, the communication between M/s. Divekar &
Co., and plaintiffs No.4 to 8 and their written response thereto is
taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit can proceed when half the plaintiffs are unrepresented and their counsel have expressed a lack of instruction to prosecute the suit.
The treatment of pending interlocutory applications consequent upon the dismissal of the suit.
Whether the court should intervene to resolve discord between plaintiffs inter se in time for the decree date.
G. S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court