Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sunil S/O Shridhar Chaudhari And ... vs Rajendra S/O Rahtoomal Jain Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7302 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 7302 Bom
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2017

Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O Shridhar Chaudhari And ... vs Rajendra S/O Rahtoomal Jain Thr. ... on 19 September, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
                                                     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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter