Bombay High Court
Shivaji Sudam Suralkar And Others vs Shivaji Revaji Dumbare And Others on 20 April, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
{1} wp8821-15
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8821 OF 2015
1. Shivaji s/o Sudam Suralkar PETITIONERS
Age - 45 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Yesgaon, Taluka - Kopargaon,
District - Ahmednagar
2. Bhimraj s/o Sudam Suralkar,
Since deceased through LRs,
2A. Smt. Mangalbai Bhimraj Suralkar,
Age - 41 years, Occ - Household
R/o Yesgaon, Taluka - Kopargaon,
District - Ahmednagar
2B Sagar s/o Bhimraj Suralkar
Age - 16 years, Minor under
Guardianship of his mother
Smt. Mangalbai Bhimraj Suralkar,
Age - 41 years, Occ - Household
R/o Yesgaon, Taluka - Kopargaon,
District - Ahmednagar
2C Pratiksha d/o Bhimraj Suralkar
Age - 13, Minor, Under
Guardianship of her mother
Smt. Mangalbai Bhimraj Suralkar,
Age - 41 years, Occ - Household
R/o Yesgaon, Taluka - Kopargaon,
District - Ahmednagar
VERSUS
1. Shivaji s/o Revaji Dumbare RESPONDENTS
Age - 48 years, Occ - Service & Agriculture
R/o A-302, Rishi Towers No.1,
Sant Meerabai Road,
Oppsite Rajnagar, Ghartanpada-2
Dahisar, Mumbai (East)
Dahisar, Maharashtra
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:05:53 :::
{2} wp8821-15
2. Smt. Bhagabai Sudam Suralkar,
Age - 70 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Yesgaon, Taluka - Kopargaon,
District - Ahmednagar
3. Sow. Latabai Sopanrao More,
Age - 43 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Dugalgaon, Post - Bokate
Taluka - Yeola, District - Nashik
4. Sow Hirabai Balasaheb Khokale
Age - 40 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Aadgaon Chothwa,
Taluka - Yeola, District - Nashik
5.
Sow Shobha Ramesh yeole,
Age - 37 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Dhamode, Taluka - Yeola
District - Nashik
6. Sow Meenatai Navnath Pawar
Age - 34 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Sawargaon, Taluka - Yeola
District - Nashik
7. Nana Anna Suralkar,
Age - 75 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Yesgaon, Taluka - Kopargaon,
District - Ahmednagar
.......
Mr. Nitin R. Bhavar, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. V. H. Dighe, Advocate for respondent No.1
Mr. P. D. Surwase, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 7
.......
[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
DATE : 20th APRIL, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned
{3} wp8821-15
advocates for the appearing parties finally with consent.
2. The petitioners are before this court aggrieved by order
dated 17th July, 2015 passed by District Judge-1, Kopargaon on
an application Exhibit-22 pursuant to Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil
Procedure Code in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2012.
3. It appears that the suit filed by the present petitioners,
seeking possession of encroached area had been dismissed.
4.
Learned advocates for the petitioners and respondent No.1
refer to various aspects, which may not be germane from the
point of view of the writ petition against order on Exhibit-22,
which is intended for addition of parties to the appeal filed by the
original plaintiffs.
5. According to learned advocate for respondent No.1,
respondents No.1 and 2 are senior citizens and that the advocate
engaged on their behalf is 89 year old. According to him, the
respondents have transferred the suit property to the
purchasers, after dismissal of the suit of present petitioners,
unwary of the further proceedings in appeal.
6. Looking at that the parties do not dispute that alienation
has taken place during pendency of the appeal, the reasons
{4} wp8821-15
which have weighed with the appellate court, whether the
purchasers being essential and necessary parties to the appeal,
may in the circumstances to a considerable extent, having
regard to the events those have occurred, would be of little
significance. It may not be that the purchasers would be
essential and necessary parties, yet, it is not the case where
they cannot be said to be proper parties, especially having
regard to the events as those have occurred, subsequent to the
dismissal of the suit.
ig It is the property and the claims of the
respective parties to the same which is at stake in the matter. In
view of the same, I deem it appropriate that instead of
approaching the matter pedantically, it would be in the interest
of the parties to allow application Exhibit-22.
7. In the circumstances, writ petition is allowed. Rule is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". Application Exhibit-22 in
Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 2012 pending before District Judge-
1, Kopargaon stands allowed.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
drp/wp8821-15
