Bombay High Court
Vishal Manoharrao Budhwant vs Sandeep Balasaibh Walke And Ors on 7 December, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
WP No. 10720/15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10720 OF 2015
Vishal Manoharrao Budhwant,
Age 40 years, Occu. Contractor,
R/o. Shivram Nagar, Parbhani,
Tal. & Dist. Parbhani. ....Petitioner.
(Ori. Deft. No. 3)
Versus
1. Sandeep Balasaibh Walke,
Age 30 years, Occu. Agril,
R/o. Godawari Coloney, Gangakhed,
Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani.
2. Haribhau Narayanrao Nandkhedkar,
Age 60 years, Occu. Medical Practitioner,
R/o. Shivajinagar, parbhani,
Tal. & Dist. Parbhani.
3. Vivak Devikantrao Deshmukh,
Age 38 years, Occu. Architect,
R/o. Lokmanya Nagar, Parbhani,
Tal. & District Parbhani ....Respondents.
Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.B. Ghute h/f.Mr. N.D. Kendre, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Mr. M.M. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 7th November, 2016.
JUDGMENT :
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,
heard both the sides for final disposal.
WP No. 10720/15
2) The petition is filed to challenge the order made on
Exh. 73 in Special Civil Suit No. 22/2014.
3) The petitioner is defendant No. 3 in aforesaid suit. No
W.S. order is made against him. He had filed application, Exh.
73, for setting aside the No W.S. order passed against him and
for permission to file written statement and this application is
rejected by the Trial Court by observing that no due diligence is
shown and he attempted to protract the decision.
4) The suit is filed for relief of specific performance of
contract and present petitioner is made party defendant only
due to the circumstance that he had filed one suit in respect of
the same property against the remaining defendants. It appears
that the suit is not in existence today. However, it appears that
the present petitioner wants to contend that he is in possession
of the suit property under some oral agreement made with
defendant No. 2. As the property involved is immovable
property, this Court holds that opportunity needs to be given to
the present petitioner to have his say in the matter and to take
decision on merits. That will also help the plaintiff as plaintiff
himself has added him as defendant in view of the interest which
the petitioner is claiming in the suit property.
WP No. 10720/15
5) The plaintiff is, however, required to spend on the
present proceeding and time of plaintiff is also consumed due to
present proceeding. It appears that defendant No. 2 is also
interested in early hearing of the matter. In view of these
circumstances, this Court holds that subject to payment of cost
of Rs.25,000/- by the present petitioner, defendant No. 3 to
plaintiff, the petition can be allowed.
6) So, the petition is allowed, subject to deposit of cost
of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) in the Trial Court.
The amount is to be paid to the plaintiff and the amount is to be
deposited prior to 19.12.2016. If the amount is not deposited by
the petitioner prior to that date, it is to be presumed that
present proceeding is dismissed. If the amount is deposited, on
or before 19.12.2016 written statement of the petitioner is to be
accepted by the Trial Court. After that the Trial Court is to
dispose of the suit expeditiously and in any case, within four
months.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
