Dismissed

Syed Laddu Syed Kadu v. Vinod Prakash Gudiwal and Another

Bombay HC27 Jan 2014WP/792/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Mumbai High Court Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting an application to add a party. The court held that the Second Appeal adjudicated rights and granted liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps if review established their interest in the property.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner to take appropriate steps if review of order succeeds.

Syed Laddu Syed Kadu Vs Vinod Prakash Gudiwal and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.792/14

¶3

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.792 OF 2014

¶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.N.T.Tribhuwan, advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶11

 Date : 27.01.2014.
PER COURT :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

The application for addition of party is rejected.

¶14

Mr.Tribhuwan, learned counsel submits that the present

¶15

petitioner has also right and interest in the suit property. Though the appeal is dismissed, Review Petition seeking review of the order is pending. According to the learned counsel, the suit property is an ancestral property and the present Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with each other are proceeding with the matter. The Court while rejecting the application has failed to consider the said aspect. According to the learned counsel, though the suit is for specific performance of contract, as the petitioner has right, title and interest in the suit property, the petitioner is necessary party.

¶16

The Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner herein is decided

¶17

¶18

W.P.No.792/14

¶19

in the year 2012. The rights of the parties are adjudicated. There is no interim order passed in Review Application. Considering the above, the Court was not in error in passing the impugned order. In case the Review Petition is considered by the Court and if it is adjudicated that Petitioner has some right in the suit property then the petitioner will have liberty to take appropriate steps.

¶20

The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs.

¶21

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶22

Dt.27.01.2014. asp/office/wp792.14

¶23

¶24

W.P.No.792/14

Syed Laddu Syed Kadu v. Vinod Prakash Gudiwal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Laddu Syed Kadu v. Vinod Prakash Gudiwal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhakar Gangaram Gunjatkar Vs Zilla Parishad Nanded and Another

Sundarlal Babulal Kabra Vs Sitaram Shivram Rathod and Another

Ankush Ramrao Atkare Vs Jaibhavani Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Another

Dagadabai Anna Jagadale Vs Prabhakar Manikrao Khadke and Others

Ravindra Bahanudasrao Ingole and Others Vs Shivajirao Shridharrao More and Others

Yamunabai Ramrao Deshmukh Vs Chinmayee Purushottam Deshmukh, Minor and Others