Ashirwad Nice Developers Vs Smt. Snehalata Ganpat Dalvi and Ors.

¶1

2-wp1532-2023.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1532 OF 2023

¶5

Ashirwad Nice Developers… Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Snehalata Ganpat Dalvi & Ors.… Respondents

¶8

ATUL GANESH KULKARNI

¶9

Digitally signed byATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2023.12.05 14:36:47 +0530

¶10

Mr. Rakesh K. Agrawal for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Shreepad Murthy with Mr. Sahil Wagh i/by Mr.
Abhishek Patil for respondent Nos.2, 4, 6 and 7.

¶12

Mr. S.H. Singh i/by Mr. Nilesh L. Makwana for
respondent Nos.1o to 12.

¶13

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶14

DATED:DECEMBER 5, 2023

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1.The petitioner applied before the Trial Court for adding him
as defendant in a suit seeking declaration that the Will executed by
the predecessor of the plaintiff be declared as not binding on the
plaintiff and possession of the plaintiff’s share over the buildings
referred in prayer clause (b-1) along with other reliefs. The Trial
Court rejected the application holding that Court Receiver is
already appointed in relation to the suit property and no
permission of the Court Receiver was obtained before creating
rights in favour of the petitioner.

¶17

2.Respondent Nos.10 to 12 filed Suit No.4677 of 1998 seeking
a declaration that the last Will and Testament of late Ganpat

¶18

1

¶19

2-wp1532-2023.doc

¶20

Ramchandra Dalvi dated 28 March 1991 is not binding on his heir
and the estate of Ramchandra Dhondu Dalvi be administered
under the orders of the Court. The plaintiffs also prayed for
delivery of possession of their share in the suit properties described
in prayer clause (b-1). Further reliefs such as payment of monthly
amount and rendering of accounts was also made.

¶21

3.During the pendency of the suit, the present petitioner filed
Chamber Summons No.1470 of 2021 seeking a direction against
the plaintiffs to add petitioner as defendant No.10 in the suit. The
basis of relief of addition of party was assignment of rights of
defendant Nos.1, 1A, 3 and 5 in petitioner’s favour. According to
the petitioner, in effect the petitioner has purchased 1/2 undivided
share in relation to the buildings described in prayer clause (b-1)
of the plaint. Therefore, he has substantial interest in the suit
property.

¶22

4.The Trial Court rejected the application mainly on the
ground that the assignment in petitioner’s favour is without
permission of the Court Receiver and the dispute pertains to the
Will and Testament of late Ganpat Ramchandra Dalvi.

¶23

5.Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Trial
Court was not justified in rejecting the application as permission of
the Court Receiver is not required for transfer of property. The
petitioner is not disturbing possession and, hence, Court Receiver’s
permission is not necessary. Moreover, the conduct of the
petitioner cannot be construed as mala fide or contumacious and,
therefore, the petitioner having assigned approximately 50% of

¶24

2

¶25

2-wp1532-2023.doc

¶26

undivided share in the suit property, they are necessary party in
the suit.

¶27

6.Per contra, learned advocate for the plaintiff and co-
defendants opposed the prayer contending that such assignment
by defendant Nos.1, 1A, 3 and 5 amounts to contempt of Court as
Court Receiver is appointed over the suit properties and without
his permission defendants could not have assigned their rights in
favour of the petitioner.

¶28

7.In support of their contention, the respondents relied on the
judgments in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v.
Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,
reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417, Dhanalakshmi & Ors. v. P.
Mohan & Ors. reported in AIR (2007) SC 1062, Everest Coal
Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 1977 SC
2304 and Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar & Ors.
reported in (1984) 3 SCC 410.

¶29

8.I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the
parties. It is well settled position of law as regards impleadment of
parties to the suit that the plaintiff being dominus litis may choose
persons against whom he wishes to litigate and the plaintiff cannot
be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any
relief. However, this general rule is subject to provisions of Order 1
Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which permits the
Court either on an application or on its own motion to issue
direction to the plaintiff to implead proper or necessary party
whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable

¶30

3

¶31

2-wp1532-2023.doc

¶32

the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the issues
involved in the suit.

¶33

9.It is also well settled that necessary party is a person who
ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no
effective decree could be passed by the Court. A property party is a
person whose presence would enable the Court to completely and
effectually adjudicate the issues involved in the suit.

¶34

10. The parameters for exercise of power under Order 1 Rule 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been laid down by the
Apex Court in Vidur Impex & Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v.
Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2012) 8 SCC
384. The Apex Court in paragraph 41 has laid down the
parameters for exercise of power by the Court under Order 1 Rule
10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which are as under:

¶35

“41.Though there is apparent conflict in the observations
made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad
principles which should govern disposal of an application for
impleadment are:

¶36

41.1.The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings,
either on an application made by the parties or otherwise,
direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to
have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence
before the Court is necessary for effective and complete
adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.

¶37

41.2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be
joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective
decree cannot be passed by the Court.

¶38

41.3. A proper party is a person whose presence would
enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly

¶39

4

¶40

2-wp1532-2023.doc

¶41

adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be
a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be
made.

¶42

41.4. If a person is not found to be a proper or
necessary party, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to
order his impleadment against the wishes of the plaintiff.

¶43

41.5. In a suit for specific performance, the Court can
order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above
board, and who files application for being joined as party
within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the
pending litigation.

¶44

41.6. However, if the applicant is guilty of
contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine
transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit
property in violation of the restraint order passed by the
Court or the application is unduly delayed then the Court
will be fully justified in declining the prayer for
impleadment.”

¶45

11. In the facts of the present case, prayer clause (b-1) as sought
by the plaintiff is in relation to three buildings in relation to which
the plaintiff seeks possession. According to the petitioner, by virtue
of consent decree dated 4 July 2018 defendant Nos.1, 1A, 3 & 5
have surrendered their undivided share qua suit properties in
prayer (b-1) in favour of the petitioner for valuable consideration.
Therefore, the petitioner has substantial interest in the suit
property.

¶46

12. In so far as the contention raised by the respondent that
surrender of rights by defendant Nos.1, 1A, 3 and 5 amounts to
contempt of Court and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to
claim any rights based on such consent decree. In this regard, it is

¶47

5

¶48

2-wp1532-2023.doc

¶49

necessary to refer to the judgment in the case of Thomson Press
(India) Ltd. v. Nanan Builders & Investors P. Ltd. & Ors.
reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397 wherein the Apex Court had
occasion to consider an application filed by a person who
purchased the property in violation of Court’s order in a suit for
specific performance. Though the purchaser was aware of the
order of the Court before purchase, the Supreme Court allowed
such purchaser to be added as party-defendant by holding that in a
suit for specific performance the Court can order impleadment of a
purchaser whose conduct is above board and who filed an
application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his
acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. However, if the
applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a
clandestine transaction, the Court will be fully justified in
declining prayer for impleadment.

¶50

13. In the facts of the present case, from the reply filed by the
plaintiff and other contesting respondents, it is not the case of the
plaintiff that the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is
beneficiary of clandestine transaction or there is unreasonable
delay in filing the application for impleadment.

¶51

14. Whether such surrender of rights by defendant Nos.1, 1A, 3
and 5 amounts to contempt of Court needs to be adjudicated in an
appropriate proceedings. However, such contention per se would
not dis-entitle the petitioner from being joined as defendant No.10
in the suit as the defendant purchased substantial interest in the
three buildings which is the subject matter of prayer clause (b-1)
of the suit. Therefore, in my opinion, the Trial Court was not

¶52

6

¶53

2-wp1532-2023.doc

¶54

justified in rejecting the Chamber Summons filed by the petitioner
to add him as defendant No.10 in the suit.

¶55

15. In so far as the judgments relied upon by the respondents in
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (supra),
Dhanalakshmi & Ors. (supra), Everest Coal Company Pvt.
Ltd. (supra) and Sadhuram Bansal (supra) are concerned,
there cannot be any dispute about the legal proposition of law laid
down by the Apex Court. However, in the facts of the case, the
petitioner has prima facie proved that he has substantial interest in
the suit property and, therefore, grant of relief of possession would
affect legal rights over the suit property. Therefore, the judgments
relied upon by the respondents are of no help to the respondents.
Hence, following order:

¶56

a) Impugned order dated 24 November 2022 passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai (Court No.1) in Chamber Summons No.1470 of 2021 in Suit No.8447 of 1998 is quashed and set aside;

¶57

b) Chamber Summons No.1470 of 2021 in Suit No.8447 of 1998 is allowed;

¶58

16. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs.

¶59

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶60

7

Ashirwad Nice Developers v. Smt. Snehalata Ganpat Dalvi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashirwad Nice Developers v. Smt. Snehalata Ganpat Dalvi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Maryappa Sawant and Ors. Vs Sharad Laxman Chavan and Ors.

Manojkunj Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Thr. Authorised Mr. Arun Deshpande Vs Smt. Vidya Ramesh Kantabet and Ors.

Tanaji Antu Pawar (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Vs Kashinath Hari Pawar (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Kamalabai Kashinath Pawar (Deceased) and Ors.

Shri. Balaso Ganapati Varekar Vs Shri. Savkar Raoso Magdum and Ors.

Shri. Balaso Ganapati Varekar Vs Shri. Dada @ Anna Bharama Magdum and Anr.

Shri. Balaso Ganapati Varekar Vs Shri. Neminath Tatoba Magdum and Ors.