Dismissed

Sandip Machindra Karale and Another v. Machindra Laxman Karale and Others

Bombay HC3 Aug 2023WP/8555/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to add necessary party defendants under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC in a partition suit, holding that purchasers of an undisputed and irrelevant portion of the property were not necessary parties.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed holding rejection of application to add parties justified.

Sandip Machindra Karale and Another Vs Machindra Laxman Karale and… — Partition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

932-WP-8555-23

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8555 OF 2023

¶5

Sandip Machindra Karale and another

¶6

.... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Machindra Laxman Karale and others .... Respondents

¶9

Mr. K.N. shermale, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. Z.M. Pathan, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

Application Exhibit-120 filed by the

¶12

petitioners/plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.280 of 2007 for addition of party defendants is rejected by the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Newasa.

¶13

Pursuant to, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed suit for partition of Gut No.40/2 admeasuring 0 Hectare 41 R, which is the part of Gut No.40 situated at Mouje Handinimgaon. The defendants appeared and filed suit by filing written statement. There is an averment in the written statement that, various sale transactions were done in respect

1 of 3

932-WP-8555-23

of Gut No.40/1. The subsequent purchasers are not arrayed as defendants in the suit, and therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder for necessary parties. Thereafter, at the instance of defendants, by order passed below Exhibit-109, the Trial Court framed additional issue, “whether the suit is bad for necessary parties”. Pursuant to framing of that issue, present application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for addition of defendant Nos.4 to 17, which is rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, the present petition.

¶18

Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned advocates for the respective respondents. Perused the writ petition memo, annexures thereto, and the impugned order.

¶19

Indisputably, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition only to the extent of Gut No.40/2 admeasuring 0 Hectare 41 R., therefore, transactions in respect of Gut No.40/1 are not at all relevant. It appears from the record that the said transactions in respect of Gut No. 40/1 were with the consent of the petitioners/plaintiffs, and therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs are not disputing those transactions. Since, the suit property is only Gut No.40/2

2 of 3

932-WP-8555-23

admeasuring 41 R, there is no need to add the purchasers of Gut No.40/1 as party defendants. The Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application, holding that proposed defendants cannot be termed as necessary/proper parties, and in their absence also, the Court can decide the suit factually and finally. There is There is no illegality or perversity in the order impugned in the present petition. The writ petition being devoid merit is dismissed.

¶24

[ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE

¶25

S.P. Rane

¶26

3 of 3

Sandip Machindra Karale and Another v. Machindra Laxman Karale and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Machindra Karale and Another v. Machindra Laxman Karale and Others

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

Angad Maroti Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Somnath Trimbak Balme and Another Vs Vitthal Gangadhar Balme and Others

Prakash Vasudeo Rakh and Another Vs Laxmikant Sonajirao Deshmukh and Another

Ramanlal Virchand Gujarathi Shah Died through Lrs Pramila Ramanlal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector and Others

Geetanjali Sunil Bilapatte and Another Vs Madhav Laxman Billapatte and Others

Akhtarunnisa Salamatullah Kidwai and Others Vs Sultuana Farzandali and Others