1 CRA77.17(J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL REVISION NO.77 of 2017
1. Sunil s/o Shridhar Chaudhari,
Aged about 61 years, Occ. Business,
R/o Flat No. 203, 3rd floor, Heritage Apartments,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. Vivek s/o Shridhar Chaudhari,
Aged about 59 years, Occ-Business,
R/o Flat No. 401, Shrijee Constructions,
Gazetted Officer Colony, MLA Square,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Shri Aappaswami Infrastructures,
Shri Swami Sankul, West High Court Road,
Nagpur-10 through Partner. ..... APPLICANTS
--Versus ---
Rajendra s/o Rahtoomal Jain,
Aged about 59 years, Occ-Business,
Through Power of Attorney-Mrs. Shashi w/o Rajendra Jain,
Aged about 57 years, Occ-Housewife,
R/o. 11 South End Park, 2nd Floor,
Kolkata-700 029 RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.A.Naik, Advocate for applicants.
Shri S.D.Sirpurkar Advocate for Respondent-sole
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE,J.
DATED : 19.09.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:35:43 ::: 2 CRA77.17(J) learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Heard Shri Naik, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri S.D.Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned order and also the plaint filed by the respondent.
3. It is seen that relief in the nature of a declaration that Sale Deed dated 05.12.2011 and Sale Deed dated 07.07.2014 executed by Golechhas in favour of applicants 1 and 2 and by Smt. Shobha Jain in favour of applicant no.3 respectively and also sale deed dated 10.02.2006 executed by Mrs. Anuja Chhajed in favour of Golechhas are not binding on the plaintiff has been sought by the respondent and this has been done even without joining Ashwin Golechha, Jyoti Golechha, Vishal Golechha, Shilpa Golechha, Shobha Jain and Mrs. Anuja Chhajed as necessary parties to the suit. Certain allegations have also been made against them. One wonders as to how such a suit could be filed without making Shobha Jain, Anuja Chhajed, Ashwin, Jyoti, Vishal and Shipa Golechha as necessary parties.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submits that an application has already been filed by the respondent before the trial Court ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:35:43 ::: 3 CRA77.17(J) for joining all these persons as necessary parties and that application is pending.
5. In view of above, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and it must go away. Liberty must also be granted to the parties to prosecute and contest the application filed for jointing of more persons as necessary parties on its own merits.
6. Accordingly, revision application is partly allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The case is remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the application filed by the respondent for joining some persons as necessary parties and the same shall be decided in accordance with law on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in the present order.
The Civil Revision Application is disposed of in above terms. No costs. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(S.B.SHUKRE, J) Andurkar ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2017 01:35:43 :::