Khurshid Nooruddin Shaikh (W/O. Nooruddin Shaikh) and Ors. vs Sameer Salim Shaikh and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Khurshid Nooruddin Shaikh (W/O. Nooruddin Shaikh) and Ors. vs Sameer Salim Shaikh and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants — third parties claiming rights through Pooja Land & Premises Pvt. Ltd. — can be permitted to come on record / intervene in Criminal Revision Application No.108 of 2023 at this stage. +1 more

Court's answer

Allowing the applicants to intervene would enlarge the scope of the revision application far beyond its permissible boundaries; the revisional jurisdiction is limited.

Ratio / Principle

The revisional jurisdiction is confined to examining the correctness, legality or propriety of the Magistrate's order in the possession dispute between the original parties; any fresh claim by third parties based on independent rights cannot be adjudicated in such revision.

Key takeaways

Only persons who are either necessary or proper parties for deciding the controversy at hand can be permitted to intervene; the applicants' presence is not required for determining the question of possession, and their addition will neither assist the Court nor be necessary for complete adjudication.ratio¶2
The applicants' alleged rights, if any, are not extinguished by the rejection; they remain free to assert such rights before the competent civil forum in accordance with law.obiter¶2
The applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the present revision application; the scope of the revision cannot be widened to adjudicate collateral claims of third parties; hence both interim applications do not merit acceptance and stand rejected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Application No.108 of 2023 (Romell Housing LLP & Ors. v. Sameer Salim Shaikh & Ors.), arising from a Magistrate's order under Section 145 CrPC in a possession dispute: Interim Applications Nos. 5347 and 144 of 2024 by Chandramani Deoraj Dubey & Ors. and Khurshid Nooruddin Shaikh & Ors. — third parties claiming rights through Pooja Land & Premises Pvt. Ltd. under a Memorandum of Understanding dated 2 May 2015 with Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and an alleged share transfer — seeking leave to intervene, REJECTED (Amit Borkar, J.). Held: (i) revisional jurisdiction is confined to examining the correctness, legality or propriety of the Magistrate's order in the possession lis between the original parties; (ii) any fresh claim by third parties based on independent rights cannot be adjudicated in such revision; (iii) only necessary or proper parties may be permitted to intervene, and the applicants are neither — allowing them would enlarge the revision beyond permissible boundaries; (iv) their asserted rights are not extinguished and remain open before the competent civil forum.

ia-5347-2024 & ia-144-2024 in revn108-2023.doc

Shabnoor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5347 OF 2024

IN

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2023

Chandramani Deoraj Dubey & Ors. … Applicants In the matter between Romell Housing LLP & Ors. … Applicants V/s. Sameer Salim Shaikh & Ors. … Respondents

AND

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2024

IN

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2023

ATUL

GANESH KULKARNI

Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2025.09.16 14:20:04 +0530

Khurshid Nooruddin Shaikh & Ors. … Applicants In the matter between Romell Housing LLP & Ors. … Applicants V/s. Sameer Salim Shaikh & Ors. … Respondents

None for the Applicants in both IAs.

Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Drupad Patil i/by Mr. Dheeraj D. Patil for the applicant in Revision.

Mr. Chaitanya Pendse with Mr. Atharva S. Jagtap for respondent No.1.

Mrs. Rajashree V. Newton, for respondent No.2-State. Mr. Rohan Sawant i/by Mr. Laxman Jain for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

Mr. N.C. Pawar, Court Receiver, is present.

1

ia-5347-2024 & ia-144-2024 in revn108-2023.doc

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 11, 2025

PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 16, 2025

P.C.:

The present interim applications have been filed by the applicants seeking permission to intervene in the ongoing proceedings. Their case is that they derive rights through Pooja Land & Premises Pvt. Ltd. The applicants rely upon a Memorandum of Understanding dated 2 May 2015 executed between themselves and Romell Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., as well as upon the alleged transfer of shares in the company by the intervener. On this basis, they assert that they have acquired independent rights over the disputed property. However, it is an admitted position that the applicants were not parties to the original proceedings before the learned Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also did not challenge the Magistrate’s order by filing any independent revision. The revision application before this Court arises only from the lis between the original parties and is confined to that limited scope.

The question that arises is whether at this stage the applicants can be permitted to come on record. In my view, allowing them to intervene would enlarge the scope of the revision application far beyond its permissible boundaries. The revisional jurisdiction is limited; it is confined to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the order passed by the Magistrate in

2

ia-5347-2024 & ia-144-2024 in revn108-2023.doc

relation to the dispute of possession between the original parties. Any fresh claim by third parties based on independent rights cannot be adjudicated in such revision. The principle is well settled that only those persons who are either necessary or proper parties for deciding the controversy at hand can be permitted to intervene. In the present case, the presence of the applicants is not required for determining the question of possession which arises in the revision. Their addition will neither assist the Court nor be necessary for complete adjudication of the matter. Their alleged rights, if any, are not extinguished by this rejection; they remain free to assert such rights before the competent civil forum in accordance with law.

In these circumstances, I hold that the applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the present revision application. The scope of this revision cannot be widened to adjudicate collateral claims of third parties. Hence, both the interim applications do not merit acceptance and stands rejected.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

3