Disposed¶19

Juao Francis Noronha and Anr. v. M/S. Jm Collection Private Ltd., Rep. by Its Auth. Rep. Pankaj Bajaj and 12 Ors.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2025WP/362/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Goa; writ petition; impleadment; Order 1 Rule 10(2); tenancy right; Regular Civil Suit No.116 of 2024; Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pernem; decree on admission; judgment and decree dated 16.08.2025; First Appeal; leave to appeal; infructuous petition; Valmiki Menezes, J.; Noronha v. JM Collection Private Ltd.; 18.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition disposed of as infructuous, with clarifications that the Appellate Court shall consider the application for leave to appeal against the decree dated 16.08.2025 on the basis of any reasons set out therein (which may include the reasoning in the Order 1 Rule 10 application), and that the Respondent may oppose and the application shall be decided on its own merits. ¶19

Juao Francis Noronha and Anr. Vs M/S. Jm Collection Private Ltd., Rep. by Its Auth. Rep. Pankaj Bajaj and 12 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the rejection of the Petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) for impleadment in Regular Civil Suit No.116 of 2024 (founded on a claimed tenancy right) survives, given that the suit has since been decreed on admission by judgment and decree dated 16.08.2025. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Since the suit in Regular Civil Suit No.116 of 2024 has been decreed (judgment and decree dated 16.08.2025) whilst the petition was pending, the present petition is rendered infructuous and stands disposed of as being infructuous.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

It is made clear that the Appellate Court, if such a challenge is thrown to the decree, shall consider the application for leave to appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2025 on the basis of any reasons set out therein, which may include the reasoning/claim contained in the Order 1 Rule 10 application.

¶18

Key takeaways

The reasons contained in the Application under Order 1 Rule 10(2), which were rejected by the order impugned in this petition, are the very same reasons that the Petitioner would put forth to justify how he is aggrieved.ratio¶17
The Respondent is entitled to oppose the application for leave to appeal, and the same shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the order impugned in this petition.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Bombay at Goa (Valmiki Menezes, J.), Writ Petition No. 362 of 2025, decided 18th September, 2025. The writ petition challenged the rejection of the Petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) seeking impleadment in Regular Civil Suit No.116 of 2024 before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Pernem, the impleadment being sought on the basis of a tenancy right claimed by the Petitioner. Whilst the petition was pending, the suit itself was decreed on admission by judgment and decree dated 16.08.2025, rendering the petition infructuous; it was accordingly disposed of as infructuous. The Court made clear that the Appellate Court, if a challenge is thrown to the decree (the Petitioner indicating an intention to file a First Appeal with leave), shall consider the application for leave to appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2025 on the basis of any reasons set out therein, which may include the reasoning/claim contained in the Order 1 Rule 10 application; the Respondent is entitled to oppose, and the application shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the order impugned in this petition.

¶1

WP 362 of 2025

¶2

Meena

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.362 OF 2025

¶5

JUAO FRANCIS NORONHA AND ANR ... PETITIONERS Versus M/S. JM COLLECTION PRIVATE LTD., REP. BY ITS AUTH. REP. PANKAJ BAJAJ AND 12 ORS ... RESPONDENTS

¶6

Mr. Jatin Ramaiya with Mr. Omkar Parab, Advocates for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Saish Mahambre, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED :- 18th September, 2025

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Registry to waive office objections and register the matter.

¶11

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that whilst this petition is pending, the judgment and Decree dated 16.08.2025 has been passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Pernem in Regular Civil Suit No.116 of 2024, decreeing the suit on admission.

¶12

The challenge in the present petition is to a rejection of an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) wherein the Petitioner sought to be impleaded in the above-mentioned suit. The impleadment was sought on the basis of a tenancy right claimed by the Petitioner.

Page 1 of 2

18th September, 2025

WP 362 of 2025

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner would be filing a First Appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2025 and seeks leave of the Appellate Court to throw such a challenge.

¶17

Obviously, the reasons contained in the Application under Order 1 Rule 10(2), which have been rejected by the order impugned herein, are the very same reasons that the Petitioner would put forth to justify how he is aggrieved.

¶18

Since the present petition is now rendered infructuous, it is made clear that the Appellate Court, if such a challenge is thrown to the decree, shall consider the application for leave to appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 16.08.2025 on the basis of any reasons set out therein, which may include the reasoning /claim contained in the application in order 1 Rule 10. The Respondent is entitled to oppose the application, and the same shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the order impugned in this petition.

¶19

With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of as being infructuous.

¶20

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶21

Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 18/09/2025 18:25:10

¶22

Page 2 of 2

¶23

18th September, 2025

Juao Francis Noronha and Anr. v. M/S. Jm Collection Private Ltd., Rep. by Its Auth. Rep. Pankaj Bajaj and 12 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juao Francis Noronha and Anr. v. M/S. Jm Collection Private Ltd., Rep. by Its Auth. Rep. Pankaj Bajaj and 12 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

Similar cases

Shailesh Shetty Vs Sanjay Vithu Barde and Anr.

Margaret Fernandes Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Shailesh Shetty Vs Sanjay Vithu Barde and 2 Ors.

Deepiksha Rama Naik Vs Snehal Shiva Devuskar

Golden Heritage Pvt. Ltd. Vs M.S Silver Heritage Spirits LLP

Joaquina Batista and Anr. vs Bernado Fernandes and 6 Ors.