Dismissed

M/S. Sai Satyam Developers Thr. Partners Ramchandra Parshuram Varak v. Suman Raghunath Karale and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2024WP/4863/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition under Article 227 where the petitioner sought review of the Trial Court's refusal to implead co-sharers in a suit concerning development agreements. The High Court held that such relief requires adjudication by the Trial Court.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S. Sai Satyam Developers Thr. Partners Ramchandra… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

3-wp-4863-2024.doc

¶2

Shabnoor

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4863 OF 2024

¶5

SHABNOORAYUBPATHAN Digitallysigned bySHABNOORAYUBPATHANDate:2024.06.1817:37:54+0530

¶6

M/s. Sai Satyam Developers through Partners Ramchandra Parshuram Varak … Petitioner V/s. Suman Raghunath Karale & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Girish Paryani i/by A & G Legal Associates, for Petitioner.

¶8

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JUNE 18, 2024

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

The petitioner is challenging an order passed by the Trial Court recalling petitioner’s application to implead third parties to the suit.

¶11

The petitioner filed a suit for a declaration that the development agreements, power of attorneys and supplementary agreements in relation to suit properties are subsisting and binding on the defendants. The petitioner further sought decree seeking direction against defendants to comply with terms and conditions of development agreement. Further injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing petitioner while carrying out construction and development of the suit property was also sought.

¶12

¶13

3-wp-4863-2024.doc

¶14

In such suit, the petitioner filed an application to implead cosharers of defendants as ‘defendants’ in the suit property. The Trial Court by the impugned order rejected the application mainly on the ground that the co-sharers sought to be impleaded, were not signatories to the documents executed in favour of the plaintiff.

¶15

Considering the prayers sought in the writ petition, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for as the relief prayed by the petitioner can be adjudicated and granted by the Trial Court without presence of proposed defendants as even as per the petitioner, alleged agreements are signed by the defendants who are parties to the suit. Hence, I do not find that the proposed defendants were necessary parties to the said suit.

¶16

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶17

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶18

M/S. Sai Satyam Developers Thr. Partners Ramchandra Parshuram Varak v. Suman Raghunath Karale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S. Sai Satyam Developers Thr. Partners Ramchandra Parshuram Varak v. Suman Raghunath Karale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division vs Ananta Laxman Thule

K N Mulla vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Prabha Ganpat Borkar ( Now Mrs. Prabha Dinesh Kannan ) vs Drego Enterprises a Partnership Firm and Ors.

Association of Indian Schools vs Aswini Jitendra Kable

Aswini Jitendra Kamble vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept.

Tata Motors Finance Limited vs Kailash Chand Yadav