Dismissed

Shri Vijaykumar Bhalchandra Joshirao and Ors. v. Shri Yogesh Prabhakar Joshirao and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2019WP/3477/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a Trial Court order allowing a plaintiff to amend the plaint to remove impleaded government authorities as defendants. The High Court rejected the petition, holding that the plaintiff as dominus litis can exclude parties, and objections regarding necessary parties for the counterclaim can be raised subsequently.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected with no order as to costs.

Shri Vijaykumar Bhalchandra Joshirao and Ors. Vs Shri Yogesh… — Partition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Pradnya Bhogale 1 3 wp 3477-16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3477 OF 2016

¶4

Vijaykumar Bhalchandra Joshirao & Ors.… Petitioners
Vs.
Yogesh Prabhakar Joshirao & Ors.… Respondents

¶5

Mr. Ashok M. Misal for the Petitioners.
Mr. V. B. Rajure for respondent No.1.

¶6

CORAM: M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2019.

¶7

P. C.:

¶8

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

2. The petitioners by this petition is challenging the order

¶10

passed below Exhibit 49 by the Trial Court allowing the
application for amendment subject to cost of Rs.500/- to be paid
to defendant Nos.1 to 3.

¶11

3.The petitioners are the original defendant Nos.1 to 3.
The respondent No.1-plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and

¶12

separate possession. There were some proceedings pending
before the Sub Divisional Officer and therefore the defendant

¶13

1 of 4

¶14

Pradnya Bhogale 2 3 wp 3477-16.doc

¶15

Nos.9 to 13 who are authorities of the Government were
impleaded as party defendants. The Sub Divisional Officer decided
the R.T.S. Appeal No.6 of 2013 and passed an order in favour of
the plaintiff on 16.8.2013 which was reflected in record of right of
mutation entry No.10784. The application was made below
Exhibit 49 for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of
Civil Procedure to bring these facts on record and for deleting the
defendant Nos.9 to 13 as no reliefs are claimed against them. The
Trial Court allowed the application. Learned counsel for the
petitioners would submit that a counter claim has been filed by
them in the said suit. According to him the presence of defendant
Nos.9 to 13 is necessary to effectively adjudicate the controversy
involved in the suit. He would further submit that he has already
filed an Appeal against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer
before the Commissioner. He would submit that the property is
given by the Government on lease in favour of defendant Nos.1 to
3 on yearly basis. He would submit that the deletion of defendant
Nos.9 to 13 from the array of the parties would effect his counter
claim.

¶16

2 of 4

¶17

Pradnya Bhogale 3 3 wp 3477-16.doc

¶18

4.I have gone through the order passed by the Trial
Court. The plaintiff by filing the application wanted to bring on
record the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in his favour.
Further the plaintiff applied that the defendant Nos.9 to 13 are
not necessary party as no reliefs are claimed against them. In so
far as the suit against the plaintiff is concerned, the plaintiff being
the dominus litis has chosen to delete the defendant Nos.9 to 13
from the array of defendants. The counter claim of the defendant
Nos.1 to 3 would obviously be decided on its own merits. It would
always open for defendant Nos.1 to 3 to raise an objection of non
joinder of necessary parties. The Trial Court will obviously decide
the objections which may be raised by defendant Nos.1 to 3 on its
own merits and in accordance with law in the additional written
statement filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to the amended plaint.

¶19

5.It is made clear that if an appropriate application is
made by the defendants to the Trial Court that the presence of
some of the parties are necessary to decide the counter claim, the
application made by defendant Nos.1 to 3 can always be
considered by the Trial Court on its own merits.

¶20

3 of 4

¶21

Pradnya Bhogale 4 3 wp 3477-16.doc

¶22

6.With these observations, the petition is rejected with

¶23

no order as to costs.

¶24

 ( M. S. KARNIK, J. )

¶25

4 of 4

Shri Vijaykumar Bhalchandra Joshirao and Ors. v. Shri Yogesh Prabhakar Joshirao and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vijaykumar Bhalchandra Joshirao and Ors. v. Shri Yogesh Prabhakar Joshirao and Ors.

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. Prasad Vinayak Vaidya Vs M/S. Laurent and Benon Management Consultants Ltd.

Mr. Ananta Sitaram Naik and Ors. Vs Mr. Tarlok Singh Lungani and Ors.

Prakash Laxman Chanderkar Vs Anupam Shrivastava, Chief Manager

Chhaya Anant Bhandary and Ors. Vs Eversmile Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., through Naresh Mane

Shri Ravi Chagansingh Vyas Vs Shri Pandurang Baburao Ghag (Since Decd.) through Lrs. and Anr.

Pune Municipal Corporation, Thr. Municipal Commissioner Vs Mr Rajeev L Sangtani and Ors.