Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 7302 Bom
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2017
1 CRA77.17(J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL REVISION NO.77 of 2017
1. Sunil s/o Shridhar Chaudhari,
Aged about 61 years, Occ. Business,
R/o Flat No. 203, 3rd floor, Heritage Apartments,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. Vivek s/o Shridhar Chaudhari,
Aged about 59 years, Occ-Business,
R/o Flat No. 401, Shrijee Constructions,
Gazetted Officer Colony, MLA Square,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Shri Aappaswami Infrastructures,
Shri Swami Sankul, West High Court Road,
Nagpur-10 through Partner. ..... APPLICANTS
--Versus ---
Rajendra s/o Rahtoomal Jain,
Aged about 59 years, Occ-Business,
Through Power of Attorney-Mrs. Shashi w/o Rajendra Jain,
Aged about 57 years, Occ-Housewife,
R/o. 11 South End Park, 2nd Floor,
Kolkata-700 029 RESPONDENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.A.Naik, Advocate for applicants.
Shri S.D.Sirpurkar Advocate for Respondent-sole
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE,J.
DATED : 19.09.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
2 CRA77.17(J)
learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Heard Shri Naik, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri
S.D.Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned
order and also the plaint filed by the respondent.
3. It is seen that relief in the nature of a declaration that Sale Deed
dated 05.12.2011 and Sale Deed dated 07.07.2014 executed by Golechhas
in favour of applicants 1 and 2 and by Smt. Shobha Jain in favour of
applicant no.3 respectively and also sale deed dated 10.02.2006 executed
by Mrs. Anuja Chhajed in favour of Golechhas are not binding on the
plaintiff has been sought by the respondent and this has been done even
without joining Ashwin Golechha, Jyoti Golechha, Vishal Golechha, Shilpa
Golechha, Shobha Jain and Mrs. Anuja Chhajed as necessary parties to the
suit. Certain allegations have also been made against them. One wonders
as to how such a suit could be filed without making Shobha Jain, Anuja
Chhajed, Ashwin, Jyoti, Vishal and Shipa Golechha as necessary parties.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submits that an
application has already been filed by the respondent before the trial Court
3 CRA77.17(J)
for joining all these persons as necessary parties and that application is
pending.
5. In view of above, I find that the impugned order cannot be
sustained in law and it must go away. Liberty must also be granted to the
parties to prosecute and contest the application filed for jointing of more
persons as necessary parties on its own merits.
6. Accordingly, revision application is partly allowed. The
impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The case is remanded
back to the trial Court for deciding the application filed by the respondent
for joining some persons as necessary parties and the same shall be decided
in accordance with law on its own merits without being influenced by the
observations made by this Court in the present order.
The Civil Revision Application is disposed of in above terms. No
costs. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(S.B.SHUKRE, J)
Andurkar
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!