Disposed¶19

Mohamad Latif Khan v. Ishrat Shakir Nuri and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Apr 2026WP/2986/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment; necessary party; proper party; Chamber Summons No. 3125/2025; LC Suit No. 2869/2025; City Civil Court; Baba Dawal Shah Dargah; trust; Waqf institution; unauthorized construction; adjacent property; BMC; Municipal Corporation; Assistant Commissioner; writ petition disposed; liberty to seek impleadment kept open; no opinion expressed on necessary/proper party status; Bombay High Court; Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; N. J. Jamadar, J.; decision date 20 April 2026; petitioner Mohamad Latif Khan; respondent Ishrat Shakir Nuri.

What did the court decide?

Liberty kept open to Baba Dawal Shah Dargah to seek impleadment in LC Suit No. 2869/2025; any such application to be decided by the learned Judge, City Civil Court on its own merits and in accordance with law. No relief granted to the Petitioner on his own impleadment challenge.

Mohamad Latif Khan vs Ishrat Shakir Nuri and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's sought impleadment in LC Suit No. 2869/2025 (via Chamber Summons No. 3125/2025) was rightly refused — i.e., whether he is a necessary or proper party to the suit — and whether the City Civil Court's dismissal order dated 02 February 2026 should be interfered with in this writ petition.

¶14

Court's answer

If Baba Dawal Shah Dargah is a Trust, or a Waqf institution, and claims to be aggrieved by the alleged unauthorized construction erected by Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff, holder of the adjacent property), it is for the Baba Dawal Shah Dargah itself to seek impleadment in the suit, if so advised.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Keeping open the liberty to Baba Dawal Shah Dargah to seek impleadment in the suit, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶19

Key takeaways

In the event Baba Dawal Shah Dargah seeks impleadment in the suit, the learned Judge, City Civil Court shall decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with law; it is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on whether Baba Dawal Shah Dargah would be either a necessary or proper party to the suit.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.) disposed of a writ petition by Mohamad Latif Khan challenging the order dated 02 February 2026 of the learned Judge, City Civil Court, dismissing Chamber Summons No. 3125/2025 by which the Petitioner sought impleadment in LC Suit No. 2869/2025 — a suit instituted by Respondent No. 1 (Ishrat Shakir Nuri, holder of the adjacent property) against Respondent Nos. 2-Municipal Corporation (BMC) and 3-Assistant Commissioner concerning alleged unauthorized construction. The City Civil Court had refused impleadment, holding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate he was either a necessary or a proper party; the Petitioner claimed to have been appointed by the manager of Baba Dawal Shah Dargah (stated to be a Trust) to supervise all electrical work at the Dargah and to oversee and monitor security of the premises. The High Court held that if Baba Dawal Shah Dargah, as a Trust or Waqf institution, claims to be aggrieved, it is for the Dargah itself to seek impleadment in the suit; liberty to do so was kept open and, on that footing, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. It was made clear that any fresh impleadment application by the Dargah shall be decided by the City Civil Court on its own merits and in accordance with law, and that this Court expressed no opinion on whether the Dargah would be a necessary or proper party to the suit.

¶1

2026:BHC-AS:18907

¶2

17 WP 2986-26.DOC

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2986 OF 2026

¶5

Mohamad Latif Khan Versus

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

Ishrat Shakir Nuri & ors. …Respondents

¶8

Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh, Ms. Bhakti Wast, for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Mayur Khadeparkar, a/w Mr. Mrityunjay B., for the Respondent No. 1.

¶10

Mr. Santosh Mali, for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 – BMC.

¶11

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 20^th APRIL 2026

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶14

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 02^nd February, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, in Chamber Summons No. 3125/2025, whereby the Chamber Summons taken out by the Petitioner seeking impleadment in LC Suit No. 2869/2025, instituted by Respondent No. 1 against Respondent Nos. 2-Municipal Corporation and Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, came to be dismissed.

¶15

The learned Judge, City Civil Court was of the view that,

¶16

the petitioner failed to demonstrate that, he was either a necessary party or a proper party. It seems that, the petitioner claims to have been appointed by the manager of Baba Dawal SAINATH, PA 1/2

¶17

17 WP 2986-26.DOC

¶18

Shah Dargah, which is stated to be a Trust, to supervise all the electrical work at the Baba Dawal Shah Dargah. The petitioner has also been authorized to oversee and monitor the security of the premises, as required.

¶19

If Baba Dawal Shah Dargah is a Trust, or for that matter, a Waqf institution, and claims to be aggrieved by the alleged unauthorized construction erected by the Respondent No. 1 – plaintiff, who is the holder of the adjacent property, it is for the Baba Dawal Shah Dargah to seek impleadment in the suit, if so advised. Thus, keeping open the liberty to the said Baba Dawal Shah Dargah to seek impleadment in the suit, the Writ Petition stands disposed

¶20

It is hereby made clear that, in the event Baba Dawal Shah Dargah seeks impleadment in the suit, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, shall decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with law. It is not be understood that, this Court has expressed any opinion on the aspect as to whether Baba Dawal Shah Dargah would be either a necessary or proper party

¶21

to the suit.

¶22

2/2

¶23

SAINATH, PA Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/04/2026 11:30:33

Mohamad Latif Khan v. Ishrat Shakir Nuri and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamad Latif Khan v. Ishrat Shakir Nuri and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Thru. R. K. Mhatre vs Maharashtra Technical Education Soc. and Anr.

Sakshi Sandip Vighane vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary and Ors.

Parikshit Devidas Bade and Ors. vs Satyajit Devidas Bade and Anr.

Mahadibai Hasha Patil Deceased vs Lilabai Ambaji Patil

Jay Gurudev Constructions Thr Its Partners Sanjay J Jain Manish K Mehta Girish M Matta vs Smt. Kashibai Padman Patil and Ors.

Umesh Rajkumar Sharma vs Sita Umesh Sharma