Bombay High Court
Shri. Ganesh Kaka Yadav vs Krantisinh Yasvantrao Patil And ... on 11 February, 2021
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
15.7280.19 wp.doc
ISM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7280 OF 2019
Ganesh Kaka Yadav ....Petitioner
V/s.
Krantisinh Yasvantrao Patil and others .....Respondents
Mr. Avinash B. Patil for the Petitioner
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2021.
P.C.:
1] S. C. Suit No. 155 of 2014 came to be initiated before the City
Civil Court, Mumbai praying therein permanent injunction against the
Defendant from dispossessing or disturbing the possession or creating
third party rights etc.
2] In the said Suit, it is specifc contention of the Respondent-
Plaintiff that on 31/11/2011, Defendant to the said Suit namely
Anand Kaka Yadav alongwith his wife and younger brother Ganesh
Kaka Yadav came to the Suit premises and threatened to start
15.7280.19 wp.doc
residing in the Suit premises.
3] In the aforesaid background, Ganesh Kaka Yadav i.e. Petitioner
herein took out Chamber Summons No. 2247 of 2018 seeking
impleadment as Defendant to the said Suit alleging that he is in
possession of the Suit premises.
4] Said Chamber Summons came to be dismissed on 29/03/2019
by the City Civil Court, Mumbai. As such, this Petition.
5] The submissions of the Petitioner are, his father namely Kaka
Yadav and his brother namely Ananda Yadav succeeded to the tenancy
right of Kaka Yadav i.e. their father. It is further claimed that there are
tenancy proceedings pending between the parties. It is also claimed
that tenancy receipts issued in the name of his brother namely
Ananda who is Respondent no. 21 to the present Petition. In the
aforesaid background, claim is since the Petitioner and Defendant i.e.
Respondent no. 21 have succeeded to the tenancy rights, Petitioner is
also a necessary party to the Suit for injunction.
15.7280.19 wp.doc
6] Petitioner so as to substantiate his claim has placed reliance on
the Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of N. Anantha Reddy V.
Anshu Kathuria and Ors [2014 AIR SCW 1058].
7] Learned counsel would urge that there is mistake apparent on
the face of record in not impleading the Petitioner as party since he is
also in possession of the Suit property by virtue of his tenancy right.
8] I have appreciated the aforesaid contention of the Petitioner
whose prayer for impleadment was rejected.
9] As far as the Suit is concerned, once it is brought to the notice
of Plaintiff that Petitioner has succeeded to the tenancy right
alongwith Respondent 21 i.e. Defendant to the suit, it was for the
Plaintiff to add or not to add the Petitioner as party Defendant as it is
the Petitioner who will be exposed to the risk of not making the Decree
binding on the Petitioner.
15.7280.19 wp.doc
10] Principle of Dominus Litis permits that it is for the Plaintiff-
Respondent nos. 1-20 to implead proper or necessary party to the
Suit. If the Plaintiff has chosen not to add the Petitioner as party
Defendant to the Suit, necessary consequences thereof will follow.
11] Merely because in the pleadings there is a reference that
Petitioner has issued threats to the Plaintiff alongwith Defendant to
the Suit does not prompt this Court or the Court below to direct his
impleadment as Defendant.
12] In the aforesaid background, support drawn by the Petitioner
from the Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of N. Anantha
Reddy [Cited supra] will be of hardly any assistance.
13] Claim of the Petitioner that by taking disadvantage of the
pendency of present Suit, his brother might frustrate his right to
claim succession in tenancy, need not to be gone into in present
proceedings as the Petitioner is at liberty to initiate such other
15.7280.19 wp.doc
proceedings against his brother who is Defendant to the Suit in
question. That being so, no case for interference is made out. Petition
fails, stands dismissed.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
