Discpetition challenging the dismissal of an application for impleadment in a special civil suit. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the petitioner's presence was unnecessary as the original owners' interest had been transferred to the defendant, dismissing the writ petition.
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.
P12.WPST.31081.2023.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.31081 OF 2023
Sonal Mukesh Mistry .. Petitioner Versus Premji Khimji Chedha & Ors. .. Respondents
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JANUARY 03, 2024
P.C.:
1. Mentioned. Not on Board. Taken on Board.
2. Heard Mr. Mhatre, learned Advocate for Petitioner.
3. Perused the praecipe dated 03.01.2024 and the Writ Petition.
4. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 10.01.2023 passed below Exhibit-115 in Special Civil Suit No.103 of 2010. Mr. Mhatre, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Application below Exhibit-115 was filed for seeking impleadment in the suit proceedings. He would submit that the suit properties initially and originally belonged to one Mr. Ishwarlal Harkisandas Dalal and Mr. Thakorbhai Harkisandas Dalal.
5. He would submit that the Petitioner is one of the legal heir
1 of 3
P12.WPST.31081.2023.doc
of the original owners of the suit property. He has fairly submitted and informed the Court that the properties have been sold by the original Petitioners to the Defendant No.1 – Rakesh Rajendrakumar Agarwal on 21.11.2013 by a of registered document.
6. He would further contend that despite the fact that the property has been sold by the original owners to the Defendant No.1, in order to support the case of the Defendant No.1 in the suit proceedings, the proposed Defendant i.e. Applicant / Petitioner filed Application seeking his impleadment.
7. I have perused the impugned order passed below Exhibit115 in Special Civil Suit No.103 of 2010 which is appended at page No.44 of the Writ Petition and on reading, it clearly records that the right, title and interest of the original owners Mr. Ishwarlal Harkisandas Dalal and Mr. Thakorbhai Harkisandas Dalal were transferred to the Defendant No.1 by a registered sale deed dated 21.11.2013 and in that view of the matter the learned Trial Court returned the finding that presence of the Applicant / Petitioner i.e. proposed Defendant shall not be necessary at all.
8. However in the event if Defendant No.1 desires to call the Applicant as his witness to give evidence with respect to the suit properties,
it shall be the prerogative of the Defendant No.1 to do so strictly in accordance with law. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned
2 of 3
P12.WPST.31081.2023.doc
order which returns cogent findings which I am inclined to accept. The findings returned in paragraph No.4 of the impugned order are upheld and confirmed. Resultantly, the impugned order is also upheld and confirmed.
9. With the above directions, Writ Petition is dismissed.
H. H. SAWANT
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed HARSHADAHANUMANT by HARSHADAHANUMANTSAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.01.03 14:33:19 +0530
3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petitioner, claiming to be a legal heir of the original owners, should have been impleaded in special civil suit proceedings regarding transferred suit properties.
Sonal Mukesh Mistry
Premji Khimji Chedha & Ors.
Milind N. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
