Appeal against an order in a property suit for declaration and injunction. Court allowed intervention applications but dismissed the appeal noting lack of formal impleadment steps by applicants.
Intervention application allowed; Appeal dismissed.
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.
Sherla V.
caa.91.2018_5(2).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.
... Appellant
Vs.
… Respondent
Mr.for the Appellant Mr., for Respondent
CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 12, 2018
P.C. :
that 70% rights in the property are purchased by the applicant from the original defendants i.e., appellant and, therefore, the applicant be allowed to intervene in this appeal. She submits that the applicants want to file Chamber Summons in the Suit before the trial Court.
Page 1 of 2
caa.91.2018_5(2).doc
No.1409 of 2010 absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) i.e., the defendants shall not interfere, obstruct in any manner, shall not cause nuisance and annoyance in the plaintiffs' use and occupation of the suit premises.
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for intervention should be allowed given the lis pendens status of the property transfer.
Whether the appeal can be disposed of despite the applicants not having sought formal impleadment in the suit.
Appellant
Respondent
Applicants
Mridula Bhattacharya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
