Dismissed

Rajendra M. Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., through Director, Jitendra M. Thakker and Ors. v. Jibhau Dadaji Sonawane and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Dec 2017WP/2689/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging an order refusing to add petitioners as parties to a specific performance suit, holding no reason to interfere given the suit's progress and separate partition filing.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed; the impugned order passed by the Trial Court remains unaltered.

Rajendra M. Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., through… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Dixit

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2689 OF 2013

¶4

Rajendra M. Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd., Nashik & Anr. .… Petitioners

¶5

V/s. Jibhau Dadaji Sonawane & Ors. …. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Girish Godbole, i/by Mr. Sumit S. Kothari, for the Petitioners. Mr. Girish R. Agrawal for Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

¶8

DATE : 18 TH DECEMBER 2017.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard Mr. Godbole, learned counsel for the Petitioners, and Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶11

By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 31^st December 2012 passed by the 5^th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, below Exhibit-62 in Special Civil Suit No.18 of 1995.

¶12

The application at Exhibit-62 was filed by the present Petitioners, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, for including them as parties to the Suit on the count that, Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are having undivided 2/3^rd share in the suit property and Petitioner No.1 has agreed to purchase ½ share of Defendant Nos.2 and 3 vide Registered

¶13

Agreement dated 25^th October 1989.

¶14

1/2

¶15

WP-2689-13.doc

¶16

The perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court reveals that, the Suit is for specific performance of the contract and in such situation, the 'Subsequent Purchaser' cannot be, strictly speaking, the necessary party to the Suit, as without their presence, the Suit can be decided effectively. In view thereof, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

¶17

Even otherwise also, learned counsel for the Respondents brings it to the notice of this Court that the Suit is now fixed for Judgment on 2^nd January 2018. Apart from that, the Petitioners have already filed a separate Suit for partition. In the light of both these facts also, no interference is warranted in the impugned order of the Trial Court.

¶18

Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

¶19

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

¶20

2/2

¶21

WP-2689-13.doc

Rajendra M. Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., through Director, Jitendra M. Thakker and Ors. v. Jibhau Dadaji Sonawane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra M. Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., through Director, Jitendra M. Thakker and Ors. v. Jibhau Dadaji Sonawane and Ors.

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

Akshay Manoj Jaisinghani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr. Morris Benny Kinny Vs Mr. Gangaram Jethiya Bhandari and Ors.

Laxmi B. Metkari Vs Executive Engineer, North Mumbai Division, Public Works Department and Ors.

Ashwini Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Thru. Chairman Shri Prakash Anant Valame Vs Laxmanrao Shankarrao Sinde (Since Deceased) Thru. Lrs and Ors.

Sachin Dilip Shahane and Ors. Vs Vaibhavi @ Pratisha Sachin Shahane and Anr.

Smt. Kamal Raghunath Deshmukh Vs Smt. Tarabai Martand Deshmukh and Ors.