Dismissed

Ramnik Narayn Dodia and 33 Ors. v. Shanti Sagar Realty India Pvt. Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2018LPETN/148/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC to plaintiffs seeking to represent additional parties due to a pending dispute regarding the identity of the bona fide purchaser of a flat between an additional party and an applicant in a chamber summons.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to plaintiffs is refused; petition disposed accordingly.

Ramnik Narayn Dodia and 33 Ors. Vs Shanti… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

6-LPETN148-18.DOC

¶2

Atul

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION LEAVE PETITION NO. 148 OF 2018

¶4

IN

¶5

COMMERCIAL SUIT (L) NO. 638 OF 2018

¶6

Ramnik Narayan Dodia & Ors…Plaintiffs
Versus
Shanti Nagar Realty India Pvt Ltd & Ors…Defendants

¶7

Mr Vishesh Karla, i/b Vidhii Partners, for the Plaintiffs.
Mr Ankit Lohia, for the Intervenor/Applicant in Chamber Summons.
Mr Krishna K Homalbe Patil, for Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 & 6.

¶8

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 9th July 2018

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.The two Plaintiffs seek under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of
Civil Procedure 1908. They claim that they represent not only
themselves but additional parties listed at Serial Nos. 3 to 34. I do
not see how leave in this form can be granted. The additional parties
at Serial Nos. 3 to 34 can always joined as party-Plaintiffs.

¶11

2.The real difficulty is that between additional party No. 6,
Raghunath Thakorlal Randeria and the Applicant in Chamber
Summons in Commercial Division (CHSCD) (L) No. 840 of 2018
represented today by Mr Ankit Lohia, there is a dispute as to who is

¶12

Page 1 of 2
9th July 2018

¶13

6-LPETN148-18.DOC

¶14

in fact the bona fide purchaser of one particular flat. Thus, for the
purposes of Order 1 Rule 8, these two Plaintiffs cannot be said to
represent the interest of the flat purchasers because there is a
controversy about the identity of the purchaser of at least one flat.

¶15

3. The Applicant in Chamber Summons (L) No. 840 of 2018 seeks impleadment. Undoubtedly that Chamber Summons will be heard on merits. The Chamber Summons in fact is being opposed by the Plaintiffs precisely on this basis.

¶16

4. Since there is a contest between that Applicant and additional party No. 6 sought be represented by Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, Leave refused.

¶17

5. The Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶19

Page 2 of 2
9th July 2018

Ramnik Narayn Dodia and 33 Ors. v. Shanti Sagar Realty India Pvt. Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnik Narayn Dodia and 33 Ors. v. Shanti Sagar Realty India Pvt. Ltd. and 6 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

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs M/S. Earnest and Co.

Sitadevi Gaurishankar Goenka Vs Gaurishankar Ganpatrai Goenka (Deceased)

Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy Vs Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy and 11 Ors. and Khatija A.S. Oomerbhoy and 2 Ors. (Respondent)

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. and Anr. Vs Utc Carriers

M/S Three Circles Vs U.P. Co-Op. Federation Ltd. and Nrb Bearings Ltd.

Fountain Square Residents and Commericial Welfare Association Mumbai Vs Shree Shubh Builders Pvt. Ltd. and 9 Ors.