Disposed¶36

Sopanrao Dinkarrao Jagtap Decd. Thr. Lhr Sahebrao Rajaram Jadhav v. Sarjerao Shivajirao Jedhe and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Sept 2025WP/2725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Writ Petition No. 2725 of 2024; Gauri Godse, J.; Order XXII Rule 3 CPC; legal representative; substitution of deceased plaintiff; rejection of application; Exhibit-56; Regular Civil Appeal No. 411 of 2014; necessary party; proper party; withdrawal of application with liberty; quashing of order dated 19 July 2022; trust governing council; leave and liberty; contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw application at Exhibit-56 with liberty to file an appropriate application for adding him as a necessary or proper party; impugned order dated 19th July 2022 below Exhibit-56 quashed and set aside; fresh application, if filed, to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law; rival contentions kept open. ¶36

Sopanrao Dinkarrao Jagtap Decd. Thr. Lhr Sahebrao Rajaram Jadhav vs Sarjerao Shivajirao Jedhe and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be brought on record as the legal representative of the original plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, his application having been rejected mainly on the ground that no material was produced to show that he is a member of the governing council of the trust. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

As the appeal is still pending, the petitioner is granted leave with liberty as prayed.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is granted liberty to withdraw the application at Exhibit-56, with liberty to file an appropriate application as permissible in law for adding him as a necessary or proper party.

¶27

Key takeaways

In view of the leave and liberty granted, the impugned order dated 19th July 2022 passed below Exhibit-56 is quashed and set aside.ratio¶31
If a fresh application is filed pursuant to the liberty granted by this order, it shall be decided in accordance with law on its own merits.ratio¶33
All rival contentions of the parties on the merits of such application, if filed, are expressly kept open; this Court did not decide the petitioner's entitlement either as legal representative or as necessary/proper party.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Gauri Godse, J.) disposed of Writ Petition No. 2725 of 2024, which challenged the rejection of an application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC to bring the petitioner on record as the legal representative of the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Appeal No. 411 of 2014 (an appeal by original defendant no. 4 against the decree in a suit of deceased Sopan Dinkarrao Jagtap, still pending). The application had been rejected mainly for want of material showing the petitioner to be a member of the governing council of the trust. Counsel sought leave to withdraw the application at Exhibit-56 with liberty to move afresh for addition as a necessary/proper party. Leave and liberty were granted; the impugned order dated 19 July 2022 was quashed and set aside; any fresh application is to be decided on its own merits, with rival contentions kept open.

¶1

2-WP-2725-2024.docx

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2725 OF 2024

¶5

Sopanrao Dinkarrao Jagtap … Petitioner Decd through LRs Sahebrao

¶6

Raja Ram Jadhav

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Sarjerao Shivajirao Jedhe … Respondents and Others

¶9

Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar for the Petitioners.

¶10

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶11

DATE : 3^rd SEPTEMBER 2025

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

This petition is filed to challenge the order rejecting the

¶14

petitioner’s application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) to bring him on record as the legal representative of the original plaintiff.

¶15

The application is filed on the ground that the petitioner

¶16

is a member of the governing council and therefore he has a right to be replaced in place of the plaintiff. This application is rejected mainly on the ground that no material was produced on record to show that the petitioner is a member of the

¶17

governing council of the trust.

¶18

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARIRAMESH RAJESHWARIRAMESHPILLAI PILLAI Date: 2025.09.08 05:33:08 +0200

¶19

1/3

¶20

2-WP-2725-2024.docx

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if it

¶22

is held that the petitioner is not entitled to be substituted in place of the plaintiff, he would have right to be added as a necessary party to the proceedings. He therefore seeks leave to withdraw the application at Exhibit-56 with liberty to file appropriate application for adding him as a necessary party.

¶23

The impugned order is passed below Exhibit-56 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 411 of 2014. The appeal is filed by original defendant no. 4 to challenge the decree passed in a suit filed by deceased Sopan Dinkarrao Jagtap. The appeal

¶24

is still pending. Hence, the petitioner is granted leave with liberty as prayed.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of by passing following

¶26

order:

¶27

(i) The petitioner is granted liberty to withdraw the application at Exhibit-56 with liberty to file appropriate application as permissible in law for adding him as a necessary or proper party.

¶28

(ii) In view of the leave and the liberty granted, the impugned order dated 19^th July 2022 passed below

¶29

2/3

¶30

2-WP-2725-2024.docx

¶31

Exhibit- 56 is quashed and set aside.

¶32