Quashed

Anand S. Jamsandekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2022WP/2010/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Bombay quashed an impugned order that rejected the petitioners' impleadment as legal representatives of a deceased defendant. The Court held that the lower court erred by deciding on landlord status without first allowing the petitioners to prove legal representative status under Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Chamber Summons restored; Lower Court directed to decide issue under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC.

Anand S. Jamsandekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

(913)-WP-2010-22.doc .

¶2

Digitally signed by BALAJI BALAJIGOVINDRAO GOVINDRAOPANCHAL PANCHAL Date: 2022.03.11 18:28:22 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2010 OF 2022
WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION STAMP NO.5722 OF 2022

¶6

Mr. Anand S. Jamsandekar and Ors.
Versus

¶7

..Petitioners

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents

¶9

Mr. Vishwanath S. Kapse a/w Upendra Mahadik i/by Fast Track
Legal, for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. P. P. Pujari, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2/State.
Mr. Sanjay Prabhu, for the Respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶12

 DATE : 9th MARCH, 2022

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1.Leave to amend in relation to the incorporation in the
date of the order impugned.

¶15

2. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶16

3. The respondent/plaintiff claims to be allottee of the
premises which were requisitioned. Deceased Keshav Jamsandekar
was the owner of the suit property.

¶17

4. The petitioners claim to be legal representatives of the
said deceased Keshav Jamsandekar and as such claimed to have

¶18

BGP. 1 o f 3

¶19

(913)-WP-2010-22.doc .

¶20

succeeded to the interest of the said Keshav Jamsandekar in the suit
property and sought their impleadment which prayer is rejected
vide impugned order.

¶21

5. Having appreciated rival submissions of the parties to
the present petition, what can be noticed is the respondent/plaintiff
has disputed the status of the petitioners as that of legal
representatives of deceased Keshav Jamsandekar i.e. owner of the
suit premises.

¶22

6. In the aforesaid background, it was expected from the
petitioners to address the Court below and establish that they are
legal representatives of the deceased Keshav Jamsandekar in view of
stand taken by the plaintiff about denial of their status. The
petitioners as such should have established their status under Order
XXII Rule 5 of the CPC. Rather the Court below in the impugned
order has considered whether the petitioners have established their
status that of landlord or owner. As such, in my opinion, the
petitioners can be given an opportunity to establish their claim that
they are legal representatives of deceased Keshav Jamsandekar as
provided under Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC.

¶23

7. In the aforesaid background, the order impugned in the
present petition is hereby quashed and set aside. The Chamber
Summons stands restored to the file of the learned Court below.
The Court below is directed to decide the same in the light of

¶24

BGP. 2 o f 3

¶25

(913)-WP-2010-22.doc .

¶26

provisions of Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC.

¶27

8. The petition as such stands allowed in above terms.

¶28

9. In view of disposal of petition, interim application also stands disposed of.

¶29

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

¶30

3 o f 3

¶31

BGP.

Anand S. Jamsandekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand S. Jamsandekar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

Tilottama Swapnil Lamkane Vs Swapnil Uttamkumar Lamkane

Naranbhai Ranabhai Ghadia and Ors. Vs Suresh Kantilal Jani

Sapana Vikram Kakade Vs Vikram Suresh Kakade

Ayodhya Popatlal Gaidya, through P.A. Holder Paurnima Popatlal Gadiya Vs Kar Properties , through Its Partners and Ors.

Shri. Husen Mahamad Shaikh Vs Sukhdeo Bhimrao Chavan and Ors.

Sadashiv Bhaskar Ippar Vs Bakubai Gopala Lokhande Since Deceased(Delete) and Ors.