The High Court of Bombay heard a writ petition challenging an order allowing impleadment of parties. The Bench dismissed the petition as it found the impugned order justified.
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.
BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT
Digitally signedby BHARATDASHARATHPANDIT Date: 2022.01.2014:58:34 +0530
BDP-SPS-TAC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4469 OF 2021
Mrs Surekha Hanumantrao Pawar
Through her Power of Attorney
Mr. Hanumantrao Laxmanrao Pawar
V/s
Mrs Harsha Nikhil Mehta & Ors.
…. Petitioner.
…..Respondents
--- Mr. Jayesh M. Joshi for the Petitioner.
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE: JANUARY 19, 2022
P.C.:-
1] Heard.2]The order impugned is passed below Exhibit-45 whereby Court
of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune allowed the prayer under Order-I
Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, thereby granting impleadment
of parties to the suit. The impleadment is based on rights created in
favour of newly added parties. That being so, exercise of power under
Order-I Rule 10(2), thereby directing third parties to be impleaded as
Defendants is verymuch justified.
3] Petition as such fails and same stands dismissed.
(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )
1/1
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SUREKHA HANUMANTRAO PAWAR
HARSHA NIKHIL MEHTA
NITIN W. SAMBRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court