Dismissed

Rangnath Mohan Pawar v. Amar Kantilal Dhotre and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2015WP/1629/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the Trial Court's order rejecting an application for impleadment. The Court held that interference was not warranted as the third party had filed a suit for specific performance, and merits were reserved for the suit. - 89 words -

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed as no case for interference in the Writ Jurisdiction is made out.

Rangnath Mohan Pawar Vs Amar Kantilal Dhotre… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

09.03.2015

¶2

WP-1629-15.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1629 OF 2015

¶5

Rangnath Mohan Pawar .. Petitioner Versus Amar Kantilal Dhotre and another .. Respondents

¶6

Shri. Shriram S. Chaudhary, for the Petitioner.

¶7

CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 09^th MARCH, 2015

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1. The order dated 15.11.2014 passed by the Learned 4^th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court & Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune rejecting the application Exh.30 for impleadment of the third party purchaser as party Defendant to the suit is taken exception by way of the above Petition.

¶10

2. The rejection by the Trial Court is on the ground that the third party has filed a suit for specific performance against the Plaintiff and Defendants being Special Civil Suit No.1409 of 2012. The Petitioner/ Plaintiff has also filed the instant suit being Special Civil Suit No.1322 of 2011 for declaration and injunction against the Defendants. In my view, having regard to the aforesaid facts where the third party himself has filed a suit against the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the impugned order

1 of 2

BGP .

09.03.2015

WP-1629-15.doc

¶15

rejecting the application Exh.30 filed by the third party seeking his impleadment cannot be found fault with. No case for interference in the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is therefore made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say that the contentions on merits are kept open for being urged in the suit.

¶16

[R.M. SAVANT, J]

¶17

2 of 2

¶18

BGP .

Rangnath Mohan Pawar v. Amar Kantilal Dhotre and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangnath Mohan Pawar v. Amar Kantilal Dhotre and Anr.

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

Shri. Sukumar Duryodhan Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Superintendent of Engineers, Irrigation Dept and Ors.

Karveer Bhagini Mandal Vs Karveer Bhagini Sahakari Bhandar Ltd. and Anr.

Suhas Gajanan Tillu Vs Vijaykumar Digambar Kulkarni and Other

Kavita Hingorani Vs Harish Kishinchand Chandnani

Shri. Chainu Narayan Patil Vs Mrs. Vaishali Chainu Patil

Dr. Anil Ambadas Bhosale and Anr. Vs Rajkumar Bhausaheb Bhosale