Partly allowed

Sau. Yamuna W/O Narendra Jetha v. Shri. Ajay S/O Balkrishna Petkar and Others

Bombay HC30 Sept 2024WP/2032/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Nagpur allowed a writ petition quashing a lower court order that rejected an application for impleadment under CPC Order I Rule 10. The Court held the petitioner (owner) was a proper party to be joined in a suit by the occupier challenging demolition. The petitioner was directed to be impleaded as defendant.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed and set aside; petitioner to be impleaded as defendant in the suit.

Sau. Yamuna W/O Narendra Jetha Vs Shri. Ajay S/O… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

57-wp-2032-24(j).odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (WP) No. 2032 of 2024

¶5

Sau. Yamuna W/o Narendra Jetha through POA Shri Narendra S/o Govindlalji Jetha

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Ajay S/o Balkrishna Petkar and others

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶9

Shri C.G.Bhagwani, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Shri K.R.Gour, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Shri A.M.Kukday, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶11

CORAM : N.R.BORKAR, J. DATED : 30^th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

¶12

This petition takes exception to the order

¶13

dated 31^st January, 2024 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur below Exhibit 19 in Special Civil Suit No. 868 of 2023.

¶14

The respondent no.1 herein has filed a suit challenging the notice issued by the respondent No.1 under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966.

¶15

By the order impugned the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶16

SKNair

¶17

2 57-wp-2032-24(j).odt

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent.

¶19

According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the suit premises. Whereas according to respondent No.1, he is in possession of the suit premises pursuant to agreement of sale executed by the original owner in favour of his brother. Admittedly, as on today there is no decree of specific performance of contract against the original owner or the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 is occupying the suit premises as a tenant.

¶20

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Babulal Avasthi Vs. Munna Nizamuddin Khan and another reported in 2024(2) Mh.L.J.322 has held:

¶21

Answering the question, we hold that in a suit filed by the occupier/ tenant/ licensee seeking to restrain the local authority from taking action of demolition against the property, where the landlord/ owner of the property seeks impleadment, the Court is empowered to permit the same exercising the power under Order I, Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure on the premise that the landlord/ owner is a proper party. Such a direction by the court in this fact situation would be a sound exercise of discretion consistent with the longstanding use of discretion in this manner. Refusal to permit such a joinder by not accepting the

¶22

SKNair

¶23

3 57-wp-2032-24(j).odt

¶24

landlord/owner as a proper party would be an improper use of discretion and be liable to be set aside.

¶25

In view of the above, the order impugned cannot be allowed to stand. In the result, the following order is passed.

¶26

i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 31^st January, 2024 passed by the 8^th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur below Exhibit 19 in Special Civil Suit No. 868 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶27

iii. The petitioner shall be impleaded as a party (defendant) to the suit.

¶28

SKNair

Sau. Yamuna W/O Narendra Jetha v. Shri. Ajay S/O Balkrishna Petkar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Yamuna W/O Narendra Jetha v. Shri. Ajay S/O Balkrishna Petkar and Others

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

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha and Others Vs Shri. Shankar Marotrao Bhal,E and Others

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha and Others Vs Shri. Sanjay Balkrushnaji Nagrale and Others

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha and Others Vs Shri. Surendra S/O Shamraoji Wagh and Others

Anita W/O Deepak Shelare and Another Vs Rekha W/O Roshan Khobragade and Others

Bharat Zingar Raut Vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and Others

Smt. Simran @ Champa W/O Naresh Sangtani Vs Naresh S/O Motilal Sangtani