Disposed¶17

Ajit Uddhav Suryawanshi and Anr. v. Parubai Tatoba Kadam Decd and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2025WP/16402/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ jurisdiction refused against interlocutory order; Section 105 CPC appeal remedy kept open; addition of respondent no.7 as party defendant in specific performance suit; application under Order I Rule 10 CPC; claims through Nata/Nana Kadam; alternative remedy doctrine; Bombay High Court Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Gauri Godse J; Writ Petition No. 16402 of 2024; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; remedy under Section 105 of the CPC kept open for the petitioners to challenge the impugned order in appeal. ¶17

Ajit Uddhav Suryawanshi and Anr. vs Parubai Tatoba… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

Digitally signed VARSHA by VARSHAVIJAY VIJAY RAJGURUDate: RAJGURU 2025.06.17 14:04:39 +0530

¶2

24-wp-16402-2024.doc

¶3

varsha

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16402 OF 2024

¶5

Ajit Uddhav Suryawanshi and Anr … Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

Parubai Tatoba Kadam Deceased and Ors … Respondents Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni through Mr. Akshay A. Kulkarni for Petitioners.

¶8

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 9^th JUNE 2025

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This petition is filed by the original plaintiffs to challenge the order directing the addition of respondent no.7 as a party defendant in the suit. The suit is filed for the specific performance of the agreement executed by defendant no.1.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the added defendant claims through defendant no.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out the genealogy in the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘ CPC ’) by respondent no.7. He submits that respondent no. 7 claims to have interest in the property claiming through the original holder i.e. Nana Kadam. He submits that respondent no.7 has already executed the agreement confirming the suit agreement in favour of the plaintiff.

¶12

Page no. 1 of 2

¶13

24-wp-16402-2024.doc

¶14

He submits that at the time of trial, a frivolous application is filed raising different contentions on the ground that she has her independent rights. He therefore submits that the application is filed only to protract the litigation.

¶15

I have perused the papers of the petition. The impugned order is an interlocutory order. Hence, in view of Section 105 of the CPC, it would be always open for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order in the appeal, if the final decree is against the petitioner. Hence, I do not find that this is a fit case to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

The remedy under Section 105 of the CPC is kept open.

¶17

Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶18

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶19

Page no. 2 of 2

Ajit Uddhav Suryawanshi and Anr. v. Parubai Tatoba Kadam Decd and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Uddhav Suryawanshi and Anr. v. Parubai Tatoba Kadam Decd 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

Shahaji Nanai Thorat Alias Shahajirao Dhondiba Thorat vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahadev Bapur Magdum vs Sattappa Bapu Magdum and Ors.

Sanjay Gaurishankar Sharma and Anr. vs Devang Dinesh Parmar and Ors.

Sagar Navalu Zore vs the Deputy Director of Sports and Youth and Anr.

Bhalchandra Suresh Tilave vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (M.S.E.D.C.L.)

Vinayak Shirpati Aawale vs Annasaheb Neminath Chivate