Bombay High Court
Dinesh Laxman Kodre And Anr vs Vishnu Sadu Kodre Decd. Through ... on 24 February, 2021
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
Dusane 1/4 36 wpst 26782,26781.19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.26782 OF 2019
Shri. Dinesh Laxman Kodre & Ors. .... Petitioners
Vs.
Shri. Vishnu Sadu Kodre .... Respondents
(since deceased) thru LRs
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.26781 OF 2019
Shri. Vishnu Sadu Kodre .... Petitioners
(since deceased) thru LRs.
Vs.
Shri. Rajaram Baburao Lonkar .... Respondents
(since deceased) thru LRs
Mr. Rameshwar Gite for Petitioners in both petitions.
Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
Date : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2021
P.C.:
1. Both these petitions filed by the Plaintiffs.
2. The Petitioners/Plaintiffs initiated Regular Civil Suit No.
1286 of 1990 for declaration and injunction. In the suit, an application
Dusane 2/4 36 wpst 26782,26781.19.doc
Exhibit 143 came to be moved for bringing legal heirs of deceased Smt.
Krushnabai Vishnu Kodre, Plaintiff No. 1(b) on record.
3. Another application, Exhibit 192 came to be moved under
Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. for bringing subsequent purchasers of the suit
property on record.
4. In Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 26782 of 2019, an application
165 came to be moved for adding Dinesh Laxman Kodre and Nilesh
Laxman Kodre under the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C.
5. The aforesaid applications are rejected vide orders
impugned dated 23rd January, 2018, 30th August, 2019 and 22nd
November, 2018 respectively.
6. The submissions of Mr.Gite are that, the aforesaid
proceedings for substitution of LRs of Plaintiff No.1(b), thereafter
addition of their names under Order I, Rule 10 and addition of new
parties, who are subsequent purchasers of the property are erroneously
rejected by the trial Court as these parties are necessary for proper
Dusane 3/4 36 wpst 26782,26781.19.doc
adjudication of the dispute involved. According to him, the Petitioners
discovered the Will executed by Plaintiff No. 1(b) Krushnabai, who died
on 17th May, 2009 and as such, application under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C.
for impleadment of the beneficiary under the will or for impleadment of
them as party came to be moved.
7. Apart from above, the submissions are, subsequent
purchasers are required to be added as they must be aware of the
pendency of the present proceedings.
8. If I consider aforesaid submissions, at the outset, it is
required to be noted that the trial Court on an earlier occasion has
already rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for bringing the legal heirs
of Plaintiff No. 1(b) on record, who claimed to be entitled by virtue of
Will.
9. Be that as it may, since the prayer for LRs was rejected, the
Petitioner find out another way thereby moving another application. In
my opinion, in the light of the rejection of prayer for bringing legal
heirs on record, on earlier occasion i.e. much prior to the passing of
Dusane 4/4 36 wpst 26782,26781.19.doc
impugned order, as were passed below Exhibits 110 and 135, in my
opinion, no case for interference is called for, as far as order passed
below Exhibit 143 and 165.
9. As far as order below Exhibit 192 is concerned, which
pertains to impleadment of subsequent purchasers, the Apex Court had
an occasion to consider said issue in catena of judgments and it is
already held that the parties who have purchased the property durng
pendency of the suit are not required to be added. In that view of the
matter, no case for interference is made out.
10. Both petitions are accordingly dismissed.
( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
