Writ petition challenging a trial court order permitting transposition of defendants as plaintiffs in a suit seeking cancellation of a power of attorney and a sale deed executed under it. The High Court found no fault with the order and dismissed the 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.
9-wp-612-2024.doc
Vinaa Khadpe (P.S.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.612 OF 2024
Popat Baburao Kamble .. Petitioner
Versus
Bajirao Nivrutti Nyaynit and ors .. Respondents
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JANUARY 19, 2024
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Shinde, learned Advocate for the Petitioner.
2. The impugned order dated 3 August 2023 at exhibit D – page
70 has been passed on the Application filed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transposition of Defendant Nos.3 to 16 as Plaintiffs in the suit proceedings.
3. Briefly stated the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.3 to 16 executed a joint power of attorney in favour of Defendant No.1 permitting Defendant No.1 to sell the suit property. Defendant No.1 exercised his right under the Power of Attorney and sold the suit property to Defendant No.2 but there appears to be a dispute with respect to the Plaintiff receiving consideration pursuant to the sale. Hence the suit is filed. It transpires that Plaintiff approached trial Court with a relief for revocation of the power of attorney and a declaratory relief to cancel the sale deed
1 of 2
9-wp-612-2024.doc
executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2.
4. In the above backdrop, considering that the substantive right emanated from the joint power of attorney executed by the Plaintiff along with Defendant Nos.3 to 16 in favour of Defendant No.1, Defendant Nos1 and 2 made a joint Application for transposition. Application was to the effect that Defendant Nos.3 to 16 be transposed as Plaintiffs specifically in view of the relief seeking cancellation of the sale deed between Defendant No.1 and 2. The above aspect has been correctly considered by the learned trial Court in terms of provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and appropriate cogent findings having been returned in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the order dated 3 August 2023. Learned trial Court has allowed the Application filed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and directed the Plaintiff to carry out necessary amendments and file an amended copy of the plaint.
5. No fault whatsoever can be found with the order dated 3 August 2023 wherein the aforementioned facts have been relied upon and rightly considered qua the rights of the parties to the suit. In any event in view of the reliefs payed for in the suit proceedings for declaration and cancellation of the power of attorney and the sale deed, the order dated 5 August 2023 has been correctly passed and is sustained.
6. Resultantly, Writ Petition is dismissed.
Vinaa Khadpe
Digitally signed by VINA VINA ARVIND ARVIND KHADPE KHADPE Date: 2024.01.20 16:11:59 +0530
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly allowed transposition of Defendant Nos.3 to 16 as Plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Popat Baburao Kamble
Bajirao Nivrutti Nyaynit and ors
Milind N. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
