Pundlik Pandurang Biradar vs Vishwanath Sopan Pilgure And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16734 Bom

                                       (1)


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1988 OF 2020
                                  IN
                     SECOND APPEAL NO.28 OF 2019

 Pundlik Pandurang Biradar                               = APPLICANT
                                                          (Intervenor)

          VERSUS

 1.       Vishwanath Sopan Pilgure
          and Ors.                                       = RESPONDENT/S
                            -----
 Mr.Gopal D.Kale, Advocate for Applicant;
 Mr.AN Sabnis, Advocate for Resp.No.1;
 Mr.VD Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                        -----

                                 CORAM :     SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.

                                 DATE :      2nd December, 2021.

 PER COURT :-

1. This Civil Application has been filed to

get the applicant added as party respondent to the

Second Appeal. The applicant submits that he has

purchased Survey No.3/2, admeasuring 1 hectare and

7 Ares from original defendant No.1 by registered

sale-deed on 24.6.2009 for consideration. He had

seen the clear title of defendant No.1, who was

declared owner and possessor of land Survey No.

3/2, admeasuring 2 acres and 27 gunthas by judgment

and decree in RCS No.164/1998 by leaned Civil

Judge, Junior Division, Udgir on 20.11.2000. It is

said that the said judgment and decree has not been

challenged till today. In RCS No.116/2008,

original plaintiffs were not knowing that the

applicant has purchased the land but since the date

of the sale-deed, the applicant is in possession.

Therefore, when his rights are to be affected, he

is necessary party under Order I Rule 10 of CPC.

2. Taking into consideration the contents of

the application, it can be considered that the

application is not along with any document and it

is simply an application supported by an affidavit.

The applicant may be possessing his sale-deed as

well as revenue record, if any. But, he has not

taken care to produce the same and, therefore, that

application cannot be considered and out rightly it

deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, it is

rejected.

(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE

BDV