Bombay High Court
Satyajeet Chadrashekhar Kadam vs Bapusaheb Gopinath Kadam And ... on 24 August, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
W.P.No.5624/2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5624 OF 2015
Satyajeet s/o Chandrashekhar Kadam,
Age 34 years, Occu. Agriculture &
Business, R/o Deolali Pravara,
Taluka Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar ..Petitioner
Versus
1. Bapusaheb s/o Gopinath Kadam,
Age 57 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Deolali Pravara, Taluka Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar
2. Sau. Aanagha w/o Vishwanath Joshi
Age 58 years, Occu. Household,
R/o at present M.S.E.B. Colony,
Jail road, Nashik road, Nashik ..Respondents
Mr R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/b Mr V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for
petitiioner
Mr V.D. Hon, Senior Counsel i/b Mr A.V. Hon, Advocate for respondent
No.1
Mr V.N. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.2
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATE : 24th August 2016
PER COURT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both
the sides for final disposal.
2. The petition is filed to challenge the order made on Exh.226 in
Regular Civil Suit No.283 of 2000, which is pending in the Court of
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. The said suit
is filed by Smt. Joshi, present respondent No.2 against Bapusaheb
Kadam and in the suit counter claim is filed by Bapusaheb
Kadam and he has claimed relief of injunction. During pendency of
the suit, present petitioner purchased the suit property from
W.P.No.5624/2015
respondent No.1 Smt. Joshi and so he wanted to come on record as
party - defendant in the counter claim filed by Bapusaheb Kadam.
Heard both the sides.
3. The suit was filed for relief of possession by Smt. Joshi and it
appears that she has filed purshis that she does not want to prosecute
the suit. The petitioner is relying on sale-deed executed by said Smt.
Joshi in his favour and he is also relying on the agreement made by
said Smt. Joshi and Bapusaheb Kadam to sell the property in favour of
present petitioner.
4.
Learned Judge of the trial Court has rejected the application by
holding that the evidence is already on record and present petitioner
came in picture only when the matter was fixed for final arguments.
5. The aforesaid reasoning given by the trial Court cannot sustain
in law. The suit is filed for relief of injunction by Bapusaheb Kadam
and it is his case that he is in possession under agreement of sale
made in his favour many years back. Smt. Joshi has now lost interest
in the matter and so, purchaser wants to defend the matter. Learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the observations
made in the judgment of Apex Court in 2013 (5) SCC 397 (Thomson
Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private
Limited and ors.). In that matter, there was transfer of the property
during pendency of the suit filed for specific performance. In that
case also, the Court granted permission to the purchaser. The case of
the present petitioner is on better footing, as Bapusaheb Kadam has
claimed only relief of injunction against the owner and now, present
W.P.No.5624/2015
petitioner is the owner of the suit property. In view of these
circumstances, this Court hold that the trial Court committed error in
rejecting the application.
6. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 1.4.2015
passed below Exh.226 in Regular Civil Suit No.283 of 2000 by Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar is set aside and
that application is allowed and the present petitioner is allowed to
come on record as defendant in counter claim.
7. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
( T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
vvr
