Satyavan Murlidhar Dalvi vs Datta Vithoba Lokhande and Ors.

This petition is filed by plaintiff no.3 to challenge the order rejecting the application under order VI Rule 17 filed by the plaintiffs for amending the plaint for adding subsequent purchasers as party to the suit and add the relevant pleadings. The application for amendment is rejected on the ground of due diligence not shown by the plaintiffs. The trial Court further held

¶20

that an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party rights was rejected. The trial

¶21

Page no. 1 of 3

¶22

13-WP-1375-2024.doc

¶23

Court has also observed that the transactions will be hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, the application for amendment is rejected by the impugned order.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is necessary that the application for amendment is allowed. He submits that the subsequent purchasers during the pendency of the suit would be necessary parties considering that the prayer is for partition and separate possession.

¶25

I have perused the papers of the petition. The suit is for partition and separate possession. There is no dispute that the order rejecting the application for temporary injunction restraining defendant nos.1 to 19 from creating third party rights was dismissed on 13^th October 2016. This order was never challenged by the defendants. Pending the suit an exchange deed dated 8^th October 2021 and sale deed dated 11^th March 2019 is executed between defendant no.1 and respondent nos.20, 21 and 22 (proposed defendants) in respect of undivided share of defendant no.1. The application for amendment to the plaint and adding the subsequent purchasers as party was made sometime in July 2023.

¶26

There is also no dispute that the application was filed at the

¶27

Page no. 2 of 3

¶28

13-WP-1375-2024.doc

¶29

time of final argument in the suit. The trial Court has therefore rightly rejected the application on the ground of due diligence. The trial Court has further rightly observed that the transactions would be hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the result of the suit would be binding upon the subsequent purchasers. Hence, I do not see any prejudice to the plaintiffs in view of the impugned order. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This is not a case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order.

¶30

The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶31

In view of the disposal of the petition, pending application is disposed of as infructuous.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks extension of interim relief for four weeks.

¶33

This petition is filed only by plaintiff no.3. The suit is for partition and separate possession filed in the year 2013. However, considering that the interim relief is operating in this petition since 5^th February 2024, the same is extended for four weeks from today.

¶34

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶35

Page no. 3 of 3

Satyavan Murlidhar Dalvi v. Datta Vithoba Lokhande and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyavan Murlidhar Dalvi v. Datta Vithoba Lokhande and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Jain vs Surayya Abedeen Kurwa (through Legal Heirs )

M. H. Patel vs City and Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Vidhi Darsh Ruia vs Sangita Ramji Gudhka and Ors.

Dynamic Events vs Institute for Transport and Development Policy

Vrushali Uday Salvi and Anr. vs Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Atomberg Technologies Private Limited vs Stove Kraft Limited