Quashed

Amol Bhaskar Sulakha v. Chirantan Dinkar Sulakhe and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Jan 2023WP/7218/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting the withdrawal of an application to bring a deceased plaintiff's death on record. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh application to delete the deceased's name and plead sole survivorship, while keeping all contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; liberty granted to file fresh application to delete deceased plaintiff's name and plead sole survivorship; fresh application due by 6th February 2023.

Amol Bhaskar Sulakha Vs Chirantan Dinkar Sulakhe and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

915-wp-7218-2022.doc

¶2

Pallavi

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7218 OF 2022

¶5

Amol Bhaskar Sulakha … Petitioner Versus Chirantan Dinkar Sulakhe and Anr. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Vishal Kanade i/b. Mr. Gurdeep Singh Sachar, for the Petitioner. Ms. Leena Patil for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 20^th JANUARY, 2023

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Heard Mr. Kanade, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Leena Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.

¶10

The impugned order in the present Petition is order dated 7^th April 2022 passed by the learned 3^rd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshi below Exh.42 in Reg. Civil Suit No.218 of 2021. By the impugned order, the said Exh.42 was rejected as inter-alia, it has been contended by the Petitioner that on account of death of plaintiff no.3, plaintiff no.1 – Firm i.e. M/s. Dattatray Vishwanath Sulakhe & Sons has become proprietory firm of plaintiff no.2. The said application was rejected by the learned Trial Court on the basis of sections 46, 47 and 48 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1930. There is no illegality in the impugned order requiring interference by this

¶11

1/3

¶12

915-wp-7218-2022.doc

¶13

Court under writ jurisdiction.

¶14

Mr. Kanade, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, after arguing the matter for sometime, states that he has instructions to withdraw the said Exh.42 application. He states that the Petitioner be granted liberty to file fresh application only to bring on record the factum of death of plaintiff no.3 and for deletion of name of plaintiff no.3 from the cause title of the plaint and for pleading that the Petitioner is the sole surviving partner of the firm. He categorically states that the Petitioner has given up the contention that the Petitioner has become proprietory concern of the plaintiff no.1 – Firm.

¶15

As the Petitioner is withdrawing the application bearing Exh.42, the impugned order dated 7^th April 2022 passed by the learned 3^rd Jt. C.J.J.D., Barshi below Exh.42 does not survive. Thus, Exh.42 application is allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, impugned order dated 7^th April 2022 is quashed and set aside in view of withdrawal of said Exh.42 application and dismissal of the same as withdrawn. However, the Petitioner is granted liberty to file fresh application so as to only bring on record the factum of death of plaintiff no.3 and seeking permission to delete plaintiff no.3 from the cause title of the plaint and for pleading that the Petitioner is the sole surviving partner of

2/3

915-wp-7218-2022.doc

the firm.

However, it is clarified that all the contentions with respect to fresh application which is sought to be filed by the Petitioner are expressly kept open and it is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits of such fresh application.

¶20

Ms. Patil also points out that there is another application pending bearing Exh.66 filed in said Reg. Civil Suit No.218 of 2021 taken out by the heirs of deceased plaintiff no.3 seeking their impleadment as defendants in the suit. She states that the said application be also decided along with such fresh application which is proposed to be filed by the present Petitioner.

¶21

The Petitioner i.e. the plaintiff no.2 to file such fresh application on or before 6^th February 2023.

¶22

The learned Trial Court is requested to decide such fresh application along with the said application bearing Exh.66 filed by the heirs of plaintiff no.3. It is clarified that all the contentions of both the parties are expressly kept open and this Court has not considered the merits of the rival contentions. Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.

¶23

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

¶24

3/3

Amol Bhaskar Sulakha v. Chirantan Dinkar Sulakhe and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Bhaskar Sulakha v. Chirantan Dinkar Sulakhe and Anr.

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

Smt. Vijayalaxmi Shivram Redij and Ors. Vs Ravishankar Vijayshankar Sharma

Mrs. Shamima Mohammed Khatoon Vs Mrs. Rubina Mohd. Rafique Makandar

Suhas B Marathe Vs Mahadeo Ganesh Joglekar and Ors.

Amol Bhaskar Sulakha Vs Chirantan Dinkar Sulakhe and Anr.

Swastik Industries and Ors. Vs Madhusudan N Rana

Pushpa Kishanlal Jain Vs Delna Cyurus Irani and Anr.