Dismissed

Anil Nivrutti Lokhande v. Shankuntala Dattatraya Lokhande Decd and Ors.

Writ Petition – maintainability

Bombay HC17 Feb 2026WP/2098/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Milind N. Jadhav J.; Writ Petition No.2098 of 2026; Anil Nivrutti Lokhande v. Shakuntala Dattatraya Lokhande; compromise decree; Sulenama; fraud; void ab initio; declaratory relief; third party; maintainability of writ petition; disputed questions of fact; civil court remedy; Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 2018; Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2022; Exhibit-5 application; petition dism

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the Petition is dismissed and disposed, with all contentions of the Petitioner kept expressly open in his pending suit (Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2022).

Anil Nivrutti Lokhande Vs Shankuntala Dattatraya Lokhande Decd and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

20.WP.2098.2026.doc

¶2

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2098 OF 2026

¶6

Anil Nivrutti Lokhande .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus Shakuntala Dattatraya Lokhande (since deceased) Aditya Sadasiv Ippar and Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Ms. Divya Parab, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent No.10 – State of Maharashtra.

¶10

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2026

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Heard Ms. Parab, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms.

¶13

Gavhane, learned AGP for Respondent No.10 – State of Maharashtra.

¶14

2. Admittedly Petitioner is a third party aggrieved with the Compromise Decree dated 07.05.2024 which is executed between parties in Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 2018. According to Petitioner, he seeks a declaration that said compromise deed (Sulenama) is to be declared as fraud and void-ab-initio as it affects his substantive right in the subject property which is the subject of the Sulenama.

¶15

3. If such declaratory relief is sought, the remedy available to the Petitioner is to approach the Civil Court having appropriate jurisdiction and not by way of Writ Petition to decide disputed questions of fact. Petitioner is entitled to take out appropriate

¶16

1 of 2

¶17

20.WP.2098.2026.doc

¶18

application below Exhibit-5 therein in accordance with law.

¶19

4. Ms. Parab informs the Court that Petitioner has already instituted a Suit namely Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2022 which is already pending in the Trial Court even before the Compromise was effected. If not a party to the proceedings before the Court which has passed the impugned order, present Writ Petition is not maintainable for cause of action as stated therein and the declaratory reliefs.

¶20

5. All contentions of Petitioner are otherwise kept expressly open in the suit proceeding filed by him.

¶21

6. In view of the above, Petition stands dismissed and disposed.

¶22

H. H. SAWANT

¶23

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶24

Digitally signed HARSHADAHANUMANT by HARSHADAHANUMANTSAWANT SAWANT Date: 2026.02.17 18:26:55 +0530

¶25

2 of 2

Anil Nivrutti Lokhande v. Shankuntala Dattatraya Lokhande Decd and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Nivrutti Lokhande v. Shankuntala Dattatraya Lokhande Decd and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases