Disposed¶17

Nita Vijay Surjuse (Dead) Thr. Lrs. and Others v. Rahufkhan Chotukhan Pathan and Others

Bombay HC18 Jun 2025WP/187/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No. 187 of 2024; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; R. M. Joshi, J.; decided 18 June 2025; Regular Civil Suit No. 12/2019; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; amendment of plaint; Exhibit-33; Exhibit-32; subsequent purchaser; sale deed dated 20/8/2020; purchase during pendency of suit; not a necessary party; decree binds subsequent purchaser; rejection confirmed; order set aside; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: order below Exhibit-33 set aside, with liberty to the Defendant to contest the said application and direction to the trial court to pass an order at the earliest and in accordance with law; rejection of the application below Exhibit-32 (addition of subsequent purchaser as Defendant) confirmed. ¶17

Nita Vijay Surjuse (Dead) Thr. Lrs. and Others vs Rahufkhan Chotukhan Pathan and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court rightly dealt with the Plaintiffs' application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC below Exhibit-33 in Regular Civil Suit No. 12/2019. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

The Court set aside the trial court's order below Exhibit-33 granting leave to the Plaintiffs/Petitioners to move a fresh application; it is open to the Defendant to contest the said application, and the trial court is expected to pass an order on it at the earliest and in accordance with law.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Since the sale deed in favour of the subsequent purchaser was executed during the pendency of the suit, any decree in the suit would bind him; he is therefore not a necessary party, and the rejection of the application (Exhibit-32) is confirmed.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (R. M. Joshi, J.), Writ Petition No. 187 of 2024, decided June 18, 2025 — Code of Civil Procedure, Order 6 Rule 17 — amendment of plaint; impleadment of subsequent purchaser. The Petition challenged two trial-court orders in Regular Civil Suit No. 12/2019: the order below Exhibit-33 concerning the Plaintiffs' amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, and the order below Exhibit-32 rejecting addition of the subsequent purchaser (sale deed dated 20/8/2020, executed during the pendency of the suit) as a party Defendant. The Court set aside the order below Exhibit-33 granting leave to the Plaintiffs to move a fresh application, left it open to the Defendant to contest the said application, and directed the trial court to decide it at the earliest in accordance with law. As regards Exhibit-32, the Court held that any decree in the suit would bind the subsequent purchaser, that he is not a necessary party, and confirmed the rejection of that application. Writ petition disposed of in these terms.

¶1

1/3 48.wp.187.2024.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 187 OF 2024

¶4

Nita Vijay Surjuse (since deceased through L.Rs.) and Others. … PETITIONERS

¶5

Versus Rahufkhan Chotukhan Pathan & Others … RESPONDENTS

¶6

Mr. A. A. Zade, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. A. S. Dhore, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Ms. Prachi Joshi, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶7

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : JUNE 18, 2025.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

. This Petition takes exception to the orders passed below Exhibit-33

¶10

by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 12/2019, rejecting the application for amendment filed by the Plaintiffs/Petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and order passed below Exhibit-32, rejecting the application for adding subsequent purchaser of the suit property as party Defendant.

¶11

Heard learned Counsel for both sides.

¶12

2/3 48.wp.187.2024.odt

¶13

During the course of hearing it is sought to be argued on behalf of the learned Counsel for Petitioners that the suit has been filed with specific contention that the first sale deed of year 1965 is illegal. It is his contention that the Petitioners/Original Plaintiffs want to record the ground that no sale could have been effected without prior permission of the competent authority. It is his contention that this amendment, if allowed, would be only explanatory in nature and would not change the nature of suit. Though such submissions are made now, the application runs into several pages taking up various contentions than the one now sought to be insisted upon. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the trial court below Exhibit-33 granting leave to the Plaintiffs/Petitioners to move fresh application. It would be open for the Defendant to contest the said application. Trial court is expected to pass order on the said application at the earliest and in accordance with law.

¶14

As far as order below Exhibit-32 is concerned, admittedly the Plaintiffs are seeking addition of the party who has purchased the subject property vide sale deed dated 20/8/2020. This sale deed has been executed during the pendency of the suit. Needless to say that any decree passed in this

¶15

3/3 48.wp.187.2024.odt

¶16

suit would bind the subsequent purchaser, as such he is not necessary party. Hence, rejection of application (Exhibit-32) is confirmed.

¶17

Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶18

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶19

vijaya

¶20

Signed by: Mrs. V.G. Yadav Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/06/2025 19:40:07

Nita Vijay Surjuse (Dead) Thr. Lrs. and Others v. Rahufkhan Chotukhan Pathan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nita Vijay Surjuse (Dead) Thr. Lrs. and Others v. Rahufkhan Chotukhan Pathan and Others

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

Priya Gaurav Deshmukh (Ms. Priya Vijay Khandare- Name before marriage) Vs Gaurav Kishor Deshmukh

Lalita Devrao Thakare and Another Vs Sumandas Anandrao Amborkar and Others

Sheikh Rehman Sheikh Suleman Vs the Tahsildar, Bhandara and Another

Dilip Vishwanathrao Wadhale Vs District Cooperative Election Officer, District Deputy Registrar, Amravati

Sau. Vidya W/O Vinayak Raut and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Wardha and Others

Acc Ltd. Mumbai Represented by the Plant Head Chanda Cement Works, Chandrapur Vs Safed Jhanda Kamgar Sanghatna, Chandrapur through President Suresh S/O Malhari Paikrao and Others