Dismissed¶¶17

Mandeep Singh S/O. Amarjit Singh Bhatia and Others v. Rajesh Deorao Meshram and Another

Bombay HC27 Jan 2025WP/311/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC; addition of party / intervenor in pending civil appeal; purchaser under registered sale deed impleaded; Regular Civil Appeal No. 469/2016; suit for declaration and perpetual injunction; notice served after passing of impugned order; prejudice as precondition to interference; counsel declines Court's query on sale deed date; perversity; writ petition dismissed; High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench; Anil L. Pansare, J.; A. Raoka for petitioners; Mandeep Singh Amarjit Singh v. Rajesh Deorao Meshram.

What did the court decide?

None ¶¶17

Mandeep Singh S/O. Amarjit Singh Bhatia and Others Vs Rajesh Deorao Meshram and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellate Court was justified in permitting respondent No.2 to intervene/be added as party to Regular Civil Appeal No.469/2016 under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I CPC. +2 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

Considering sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I CPC, the Court will be fully justified in an appropriate case to permit a party to intervene, in order to decide the issue completely.

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

Although notice was served on the petitioners only after the impugned order was passed, the petitioners were subsequently heard, and the Court thought it necessary to permit respondent No.2 to intervene in order to completely decide the controversy.

¶¶11

Key takeaways

Unless the petitioners make out a case of prejudice having been caused by the impugned order, interference therewith may not be solicited.ratio¶¶13
Because the petitioners' counsel was not willing to answer the Court's query regarding the date of the sale deed, assistance to the Court was wanting and it became difficult to proceed further.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Anil L. Pansare, J.), Writ Petition No. 311/2025, decided 27 January 2025 — dismissed. Respondent No.1's suit against the petitioners for declaration and perpetual injunction having been dismissed, and his Regular Civil Appeal No. 469/2016 being pending, the Appellate Court, vide the impugned order, allowed respondent No.2 — into whose favour the suit property stood sold through registered sale deed, and to whose impleadment the appellant had given no objection — to be added as party under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. Notice of the application was served on the petitioners only after the order was passed, but they were subsequently heard; observing that under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I CPC the Court is fully justified in an appropriate case to permit intervention so as to completely decide the issue, and that interference is unwarranted unless a case of prejudice is made out, the High Court dismissed the writ petition — the petitioners' counsel having declined to answer the Court's query on the date of the sale deed, which the Court wished to verify to find out perversity in the order.

¶1

(1) 14wp311.25

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.311/2025

¶4

Mandeep Singh Amarjit Singh and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Deorao Meshram and anr.

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

Mr. A. Raoka, Advocate for petitioners.

¶7

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J. DATE : JANUARY 27, 2025

¶8

Heard.

¶9

Respondent No.1 had filed a suit against the petitioners for declaration and perpetual injunction. The suit came to be dismissed. Respondent No.1 filed appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.469/2016. Pending appeal, respondent No.2 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to add him as party. The Appellate Court, vide impugned order, allowed the application on the ground that the property under question was sold to him through registered sale deed and the appellant had given no objection for adding him as party – respondent.

¶10

In context with the above, if sub Rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I of the CPC is considered, the Court will be fully justified in an appropriate case to permit the party to intervene, in order to decide the issue completely.

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner – original respondents is that they were not heard. In fact, notice was served upon them subsequent to passing the impugned order. The petitioners, however, were heard and further Court thought it necessary to permit respondent No.2 to intervene in order to completely decide the controversy. In the circumstances, unless the petitioners make out a

¶12

(2) 14wp311.25

¶13

case of prejudice having been caused, the interference may not be solicited.

¶14

During the course of argument, a question arose as regards date of sale deed, which the Court intended to verify, to find out the perversity in the order and accordingly a query was made as to when was the sale deed executed in favour of the intervenor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there arises no question of going into the date of the sale deed.

¶15

Thus, the petitioners’ counsel is not willing to answer the query made by the Court.

¶16

This is how assistance is rendered to the Court. In the circumstances, it will be difficult to proceed further.

¶17

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

(Anil L. Pansare, J.)

¶19

Kahale

Mandeep Singh S/O. Amarjit Singh Bhatia and Others v. Rajesh Deorao Meshram and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandeep Singh S/O. Amarjit Singh Bhatia and Others v. Rajesh Deorao Meshram and Another

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

Similar cases

Sagar S/O. Subhah Bhoyar and Anr. vs State of Maha., Thr. Assistant Collector as Well as Sub Divisional Officer, Kelapur and Ors.

Nanda W/O Vikas Meshram Vs Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Vikas S/O Pandurang Meshram Vs Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Vilas S/O. Jagobaji Bomanwar and Others Vs Nirmala W/O. Manoharrao Shatalwar (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

Dnyaneshwar S/O Laxmanrao Amzhare Vs State of Maha., Thr. Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition), Amravati and Others

Mahadeo S/O Bhagawan Gandhare vs Raju S/O Bhaiyaji Zade and Others