Hemantdas S/O Dayaldas Motwani vs The Chief Engineer, Maharashtra ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6118 Bom

        wp1939.17.J.odt                                                                                               1/4    


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 1939 OF 2017


             Hemantdas S/o Dayaldas Motwani,
             Aged 64 years, Occ : Business,
             R/o-House No.363/A, Jaripatka,
             Nagpur.                                                 .....PETITIONER

                          ...V E R S U S...

        1]   The Chief Engineer,
               Maharashtra Airport Development
               Company Limited,
               Having its office situated at Mihan,
               Khapri Railway, Wardha Road, Nagpur.

        2]   The Collector, 
               Civil Line, Nagpur.

        3]   M/s. Reatox Builders and Developers
               Private Limited,
               A Company incorporated under the 
               Companies Act, 1956, 
               Having its office at 3/341, IA, Rajiv CHSL
               Madhusudan Kalelkar Marg, Next to FDA,
               Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
               Mumbai - 400051,
               Through its Director.

        4]   M/s. Maitreya Services Private Limited,
               Through its Director,
               Janardhan Arvind Parulekar,
               Having its registered office at Shop No.3,
               Ground Floor, Siddhivinayak Apartment,
               Virar (West), Tah-Vasai, Dist-Thane.




::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017                                             ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:45:33 :::
         wp1939.17.J.odt                                                                                               2/4    


        5]   M/s. Maitreya Plotters and Structures Private
               Limited.
               Through its Director,
               Janardhan Arvind Parulekar,
               Having its office at 1st Floor, Indrakuna,
               Behind Balaji Hospital, Virar (East)
               District Thane 401 303.

        6]   Naresh S/o Vasantrao Trivedi,
              Aged Major, Occu : Business.

        7]   Ajay s/o Vasantrao Trivedi,
              Aged major, Occ. : Business. 

              Nos.6 & 7 Both resident of 
              Gandhibagh Garden, East, Nagpur,
              Through Power of Attorney Holder 
              Shri Omprakash S/o Gokuldas Bajaj,
              Aged major, Occ. : Business.
              R/o-Bank Colony, Jaripatka, Nagpur.        ...... RESPONDENTS.

        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Mr. Masood Shareef, Advocate for the Petitioner.
        Mr. Shyamal Kadu, AGP for the Respondent No.2.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                           CORAM  :   S. C. GUPTE, J.

th DATE : 16 AUGUST, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Assistant

Government Pleader for the State.

        02]                Rule.   Made   returnable   forthwith   and   taken   up   for





         wp1939.17.J.odt                                                                                               3/4    


        hearing with consent of counsel. 



        03]                The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to an order

refusing to allow joinder of respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein (proposed

defendant Nos.3 to 5) to the suit filed by the petitioner against

respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. The suit seeks a declaration of

ownership and perpetual injunction against respondent Nos.1 and

2 herein from entering the suit property and disturbing the

possession of the plaintiff. Pending hearing and final disposal of the

suit, the suit property purportedly acquired by respondent Nos.1

and 2 herein was transferred by them to respondent Nos.3 to 5

herein. On the basis of this transfer, respondent Nos.3 to 5 were

sought to be impleaded as party defendants to the suit. The

application was, however, rejected by the trial court purportedly on

the ground that there was no explanation for adding new private

parties as defendants to the suit.

04] Curiously enough, a simultaneous application moved by

the petitioner herein for amendment of the plaint to incorporate

the subsequent developments including the transfer of the suit

property by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein in favour of respondent

wp1939.17.J.odt 4/4

Nos.3 to 5 herein was allowed by the Court. The impugned order

of the trial Court rejecting the application for impleadment of the

transferees despite allowing the amendment showing the transfer

cannot be sustained. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein, as subsequent

transferees of the suit property, are necessary parties to the present

suit. No effective decree protecting the plaintiff's possession or title

can be passed without impleading respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are

subsequent transferees under respondent Nos.1 and 2 (original

defendants).

05] Rule is accordingly made absolute by quashing and

setting aside the impugned order passed by 3 rd Joint Civil Judge

Senior Division, Nagpur on 25th July, 2016, and allowing the

application of the petitioner for impleading of respondent Nos.3 to

5 herein (Exh.30 in Regular Civil Suit No.1016/2010). Amendment

to be carried out within two weeks.

JUDGE PBP