Bombay High Court
Akshata Uday Chounde Through Gpa ... vs Amit Govindlal Gilda And Another on 11 July, 2017
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
8726.2015WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8726 OF 2015
Akshata d/o Uday Chounde,
Age: Major, Occu: Education,
R/o 'Jaganath', Rajiv Gandhi
Chowk, Latur, Through her
Power of Attorney Holder
Uday s/o Baburao Chounde,
Age 49 years, Occu: Agri.
R/o 'Jaganath', Rajiv Gandhi
Chowk, Ausa Rd, Latur Dist. Latur. ...Petitioner
(Original Plaintiff)
Versus
1. Amit s/o Govindlal Gilda
Age: 31 years, Occu: Business &
Agri. R/o Royal Enfield Bullet Show Room
Rajiv Gandhi Chowk, Ausa Rd, Latur.
2. Sow. Manjiri w/o vijaykumar Barule,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Household &
Business, R/o Rajiv Gandhi Chowk
above Laptop Bazar,
Latur. ...Respondents
(Resp. No. 1 is the
original defendant &
Resp. No. 2 is the
original applicant In
Exh-20)
...
Mr. N. B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
...
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 09:56:42 :::
8726.2015WP.odt
2
[CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
Date: 11th July, 2017
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner purports to take
exception to order dated 4th August, 2014 passed by joint
civil judge, senior division, Latur in special civil suit no. 232
of 2013, whereunder application exhibit-20 filed by the
present respondent no. 2 viz. Manjiri Barule for adding her
as a defendant to the suit has been allowed.
3. Suit is in respect of property of Baburao, who died on
10th February, 2012. After the death of Baburao,
plaintiff/present petitioner claimed title to the property
under a will executed by deceased Baburao in his favour,
whereas, respondent no. 2 who happens to be sister of
plaintiff has instituted special civil suit no. 75 of 2013
before civil judge, senior division, Latur for declaration of
alleged will deed dated 26th January, 2012, purported to
have been executed by deceased Baburao in favour of
plaintiff, her brother as null, void and forged. She has on
the other hand claimed declaration of ownership and
8726.2015WP.odt
perpetual injunction on the basis of will executed by
Baburao in her favour on 13th June, 2011.
4. Having regard to aforesaid, learned judge has
observed in paragraph no. 8 of the impugned order dated
4th August, 2014 thus;
" 8. It is submission of plaintiff that the applicant
has already filed civil suit bearing Spl.C.No.
75/2013. The said suit is still pending before the
Second Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Latur, where she can
get appropriate relief and there is no need to add
applicant to the present suit. She cannot be termed
as necessary party as her presence is no way
necessary to decide the dispute in the present
proceeding. The above submissions of plaintiff are
not considerable, after perusal of pleadings of
Spl.C.S.No. 75/2013. It appears that the present
applicant has already challenged the will deed
purported to be executed by the deceased
Advocate Baburao Chounde in favour of present
plaintiff of this suit, her father and brother, as a null
and void. The present plaintiff filed the present suit
on the basis of said will deed, which is already
challenged in Spl.C.S.No. 75/2013. Considering the
submissions of present applicant, it appears that
8726.2015WP.odt
the present applicant is the necessary party to the
present suit as a defendant, because, the suit
property for which plaintiff claimed declaration and
injunction itself under challenge in Spl.C.S.No.
75/2013, filed by the present applicant. Therefore,
in order to decide the present suit with full
adjudication, the present applicant is necessary
party. Therefore, the submission of plaintiff is not
considerable. Moreover, in order to avoid conflict
orders in both the suits, the present applicant is
necessary to be added as defendant for just
decision of suit. Therefore, the application filed by
the applicant is liable to be allowed...."
5. Learned Judge after taking stock of the situation has
exercised discretion, which does not appear to be not
adhering to the facts and law. The learned Judge has taken
into account the principles of justice, equity and good
conscious. As such, the impugned order does not call for
interference with writ jurisdiction.
6. Writ petition as such, is not entertained and is
rejected.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner at this stage submits
that suits before the trial court be decided simultaneously
8726.2015WP.odt
and carried forward expeditiously.
8. It is open for the petitioners to make proper
application before the appropriate forum.
9. Writ petition stands disposed of.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
vdk
