Partly allowed

Vishram Krishna Kantak (Dec) Thr. Lrs. and Anr., v. Canacona Municipal Council, Thr. Its Chief Officer, Canacona and 21 Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2018WP/691/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay at Goa decided a writ petition where the Trial Court dismissed applications for addition/impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of CPC solely on delay without assessing if parties were proper or necessary. The High Court partly allowed the petition, set aside the impugned dismissal, remanded the applications for fresh decision, and extended the suit's disposal period.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.05.2018 set aside; applications at Exhibit 234, 238 and 244 sent back to Trial Court for fresh decision; disposal period of suit extended till 30.11.2018.

Vishram Krishna Kantak (Dec) Thr. Lrs. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 691 OF 2018

¶3

VISHRAM KRISHNA KANTAK (DEC) THR. LRS. AND ANR.,

¶4

Versus

¶5

CANACONA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, THR. ITS CHIEF OFFICER, CANACONA AND 21 ORS.,

¶6

... Respondents

¶7

Shri Hanumant D. Naik, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶8

Shri M.B. Costa, Senior Advocate with Shri Pranay A. Kamat, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 13 to 22.

¶9

Coram:C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶10

Date:23rd July 2018

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This petition was heard and judgment was reserved. However, the matter was again listed for seeking certain clarification on 20.07.2018 and thereafter, on 23.07.2018.

¶13

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, the first consideration by the Trial Court, in an application for addition/impleadment, filed by the parties, under Order I, Rule 10 of CPC is whether, the proposed parties are proper or necessary parties. It is not disputed and in fact, it is a matter of record that the Trial Court has not considered whether, the proposed parties are proper or necessary parties and it appears that the application is dismissed, only on the ground that

¶14

WP/691/2018

¶15

¶16

there is delay in filing the application and that there is a direction of this Court for expeditious disposal of the suit.

¶17

Although, the delay may be one of the additional considerations, while considering a prayer for impleadment, such an application has to be principally decided on the touchstone whether, the parties are proper or necessary parties, which ought to have been done by the Trial Court. Shri Naik, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in such circumstances, the applications at Exhibit 234, 238 and 244 can be sent back to the learned Trial Court, for deciding them afresh and in accordance with law, after hearing the parties.

¶18

Shri Costa, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 13 to 22, who are the principal contesting respondents, states that this Court, may pass appropriate orders as may be deem fit.

¶19

In such circumstances, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 29.05.2018, is hereby set aside. The applications at Exhibit 234, 238 and 244 are sent back to the learned Trial Court, for deciding them afresh, in accordance with law. In the light of the observations as made above, in order to facilitate the Trial Court to decide the aforesaid applications and eventually the suit, the period for disposal of the suit is extended

WP/691/2018

till 30.11.2018.

C. V. BHADANG, J.

Vishram Krishna Kantak (Dec) Thr. Lrs. and Anr., v. Canacona Municipal Council, Thr. Its Chief Officer, Canacona and 21 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishram Krishna Kantak (Dec) Thr. Lrs. and Anr., v. Canacona Municipal Council, Thr. Its Chief Officer, Canacona and 21 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

Gokuldas J. Shet Talaulikar (Dec) Thr. Lrs., Vs Narayan @ Santosh S. Sinai Usgaonkar and 4 Ors.

Vasant Vital Bhonsle (Dec) and Anr., Vs Narendra Pandurang Chatim and 3 Ors.

Ramnath Yeshwant Parvotkar (Dec), Rep. by Lrs. and Anr., Vs Narendra Pandurang Chatim and 3 Ors.

Perfeta Alias Perpetua Camelo Marques and Anr., Vs Dilip Galande and 2 Ors.

Joao C. Pereira., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Vasco Police Station, Vasco and 2 Ors.

Cosme Romaldo Silveira., Vs Village Panchayat Chicalim, Thr. Its Secretary and Anr.