Allowed

Ramling Namdeo Bidwe v. Gurling Namdeo Bidwe and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2023WP/2093/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to add the petitioner as a necessary plaintiff in a suit for partition and possession, directing amendment of the plaint within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed. Application Exhibit-51 was allowed. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks. Suit hearing expedited.

Ramling Namdeo Bidwe Vs Gurling Namdeo Bidwe and Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2023)

{1}

wp2093-06.doc

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2093 OF 2006

¶6

Ramling Namdeo Bidwe PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Gurling Namdeo Bidwe and Others RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. P. P. Mandlik h/f Mr. Amol Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V. R. Bhumkar, Advocate for respondents NO.1A to 1F

¶10

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

¶11

DATE : 12th JULY, 2023

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

This petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges order dated 1^st October, 2005 passed by the learned 2^nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, below Exhibit-51 in Regular Civil Suit No.261 of 2002, thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner / third party for adding him as plaintiff in the suit.

¶14

This Court, at the time of issuing notice, by order dated 13^th February, 2007 had granted stay to the further proceedings of the suit.

¶15

Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned

¶16

{2} wp2093-06.doc

¶17

advocate for respondents No.1A to 1F. None appears for respondents No.2 to 4. Perused the memo of writ petition, documents annexed along with it and the impugned order.

¶18

Learned advocate for respondents No.1A to 1F submits that the respondents have no objection to add the present petitioner as plaintiff in the suit.

¶19

Respondent No.1 – original plaintiff has filed the suit for possession of the suit property. It is specific averment of the petitioner in application Exhibit-51 that the suit land was partitioned in the eve of Gudi Padwa of 2001 and in that partition the suit property was allotted to the share of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 / plaintiff is also having share in the suit land and, therefore, the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit. The said application Exhibit-51 was opposed by the plaintiff and the Trial Court rejected it. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶20

Upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties, considering the averments made in application Exhibit-51 and in view of the no objection given by the respondents No.1A to 1F to add the petitioner as co-plaintiff in the suit, the the petitioner deserves to be impleaded as plaintiff in the suit.

¶21

{3} wp2093-06.doc

¶22

In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1^st October, 2005 passed by the learned 2^nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, below Exhibit-51 in Regular Civil Suit No.261 of 2002 is quashed and set aside. Application Exhibit-51 is allowed. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Hearing of the suit is expedited. Rule is made absolute.

¶23

[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI] JUDGE

¶24

drp/wp2093-06.doc

Ramling Namdeo Bidwe v. Gurling Namdeo Bidwe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramling Namdeo Bidwe v. Gurling Namdeo Bidwe 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

The Deputy General Manager through Its Regional Officer and Others Vs Ashok Wamanrao Ughade

M/S Sanjay v Deshmukh Partnership Firm through Its Managing Partner Sanjay Vithalrao Deshmukh Vs the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd. through Its Managing Director and Another

Rajeshwar Madhavrao Hingole and Others Vs the Nanded District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Nanded through Its Manging Director

Ramling Namdeo Bidwe Vs Gurling Namdeo Bidwe and Ors.

Shaikh Riyazuddin Kutbuddin Vs Shaikh Imran Anwar

Mahadev Shamrao Suryawanshi Vs Shriram City Union Finance Limited