Quashed¶21

Santosh Maruti Thule and Ors. v. Bandu Sawala Thule and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Jan 2026WP/567/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No. 567 of 2026, Santosh Maruti Thule & Ors. v. Bandu Sawala Thule & Ors., High Court of Bombay, N. J. Jamadar J., decided 27 January 2026. Keywords: abatement; setting aside abatement; condonation of delay; legal representatives of deceased defendant; impleadment; necessary party; proper party; non-rejoinder of necessary parties; maintainability of suit; plaint paragraph stating no relief sought; Civil Judge order quashed; applications Exh. 57, 59, 61 restored for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; applications (Exh. 57, 59 and 61) restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge for a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law; petition disposed. ¶21

Santosh Maruti Thule and Ors. vs Bandu Sawala Thule and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

50 WP 567-26.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 567 OF 2026

¶4

Santosh Maruti Thule & Ors. Versus

¶5

..Petitioners

¶6

Bandu Sawala Thule & Ors. …Respondents

¶7

Mr. Nikitesh Kotangale a/w Mr. Amit Jaiswar, Mr. Suhas Sarwade, for the petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Divyesh K. Jain a/w Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil, for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4.

¶9

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 27^th JANUARY 2026

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

Digitally signed SANTOSHSUBHASH by SANTOSHSUBHASHKULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2026.01.30 11:53:30 +0530

¶13

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 03^rd February, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners-plaintiffs to bring on record the legal representatives of the Defendant No. 7 along with an application for condonation of delay in seeking setting aside the abatement and bringing the legal representatives on record, came to be rejected.

¶14

It seems that, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to reject the application on the ground that, in Paragraph No. 15 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that, they were not seeking any relief against the Defendant No. 7. to 12. In Paragraph No.

SAINATH

1/2

50 WP 567-26.DOC

15 of the plaint, the petitioners-plaintiffs have stated that they have not sought any relief against the Defendant Nos. 7 to 12. However, it is specifically pleaded that, the Defendant Nos. 7 to

¶19

12 are impleaded as party defendants to the suit as there should be no bar to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-rejoinder of necessary parties. In a given case, defendant may be a necessary party, though no specific relief has been claimed against such defendant. In case of a proper party, no relief need be specifically claimed.

¶20

Thus, the application for condonation of delay to set aside the abatement and to bring legal representatives on record could not have been rejected on the ground that no relief was sought against the deceased Defendant No. 7.

¶21

Resultantly, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The impugned order stands quashed and set aside.

¶22

The applications (Exh. 57, 59 and 61) are restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge for a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law.

¶23

The petition stands disposed.

¶24

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶25

2/2

¶26

SAINATH

Santosh Maruti Thule and Ors. v. Bandu Sawala Thule and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Maruti Thule and Ors. v. Bandu Sawala Thule 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

Suresh Arjun Bhakre and Ors. vs Arjun Laxman Bhakare and Ors.

Lahanu Ramchandra Pawar and Ors. vs Usha Baburao Pawar and Ors.

Dnyandev Balu Khidbide and Jors vs Yashwant Balkrushna Jadav and Ors.

Junaid Farooqui vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

K. Maheshwara Rao vs M/S. Nitin Kantilal Shah HUF through Its Karta and Ors.

Prabhavati Ramniklal Shah and Ors. vs Bhavna Manoj Gayakvad and Ors.