This court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order directing impleadment of a builder respondent in a civil suit involving inheritance and injunction prayers. The court held the trial judge correctly exercised discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
Dinesh Sherla
18-cwp-3903-18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3903 OF 2018
Maltibai Bhagat and anr. ..Petitioners vs. Dattaram Bhoir and ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Uday Warunjikar a/w. Mr. Rahul P. Walvekar for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep N. B for Respodnent No.1.
Ms Aakanksha Helaskar I/b Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni for Respondent No.2
Ms Aruna Koli I/b Mr. Ganesh S. Koli for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 11 MARCH 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1] Heard Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms Aruna Koli, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
2] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30th January 2018 made by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Panvel below Exhibit-19. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has directed the petitioners – plaintiffs to implead respondent No.3 as a defendant in the suit.
3] Mr. Warunjikar submits that the suit as instituted is essentially for heir-ship. He submits that in such a situation respondent No.3, which is a proprietary concern of Mr.Samrat Patil, is neither a necessary nor a proper party.
1/4
Dinesh Sherla
18-cwp-3903-18
He submits that Mr. Samrat Patil has admittedly no relationship whatsoever with either the plaintiffs or the defendants in the suit. He submits that respondent No.3 is a builder and if such a builder is permitted to be impleaded as defendant in the suit, there is possibility of the suit being protracted indefinitely. He submits that the impugned order contains no reasons whatsoever. He submits that in any case the plaint does not seek any relief in relation to decree in Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 2012. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge was not justified in referring to such decree and on such basis directing impleadment of respondent no.3. For all these reasons, Mr. Warunjikar submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4] Ms Aruna Koli, learned counsel for respondent No.3, defends the impugned order on the basis of reasoning reflected therein. She points out that this is not a suit for mere heir-ship but the prayers are very widely worded. She submits that if such reliefs are granted, then same will directly affects the right, title and interest of respondent No.3. For these reasons, Ms Koli submits that the impugned order may not be interfered with.
6] From perusal of the plaint, including in particular the prayer clauses in the plaint, it cannot be said that the suit as instituted is only for declaration of heir-ship. The petitioners
2/4
Dinesh Sherla
18-cwp-3903-18
8] The apprehension expressed by Mr. Warunjikar that since respondent No.3 is a builder, respondent No.3 will protract the proceedings can always be addressed by issuing directions to the learned Trial Court that the matter should not be adjourned unnecessarily, particularly at the behest of respondent No.3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also states that unnecessary adjournment will not apply for on behalf of respondent No. 3. This statement is accepted. In any case, the learned Trial Court can always issue
3/4
Dinesh Sherla
18-cwp-3903-18
appropriate orders, if there is any attempt to unnecessarily delay the proceedings in the suit.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
4/4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition challenging the Trial Court's order directing impleadment of Respondent No.3 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.
Whether the appellant counsel's apprehension of protracted proceedings due to impleadment of a builder respondent was a valid ground for setting aside the impleadment order.
Whether the impugned order containing no reasons was liable to be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maltibai Bhagat
Dattaram Bhoir
Respondent No.3
M. S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
