Bombay High Court
Chababai Kondiba Shejwal And ... vs Karbhari Ambadas Shejwal And ... on 24 November, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
929.WP.9993.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9993 OF 2015
WITH CA/11415/2018 IN WP/9993/2015
1. Chababai wd/o Kondiba Shejwal,
Age : 87 years, Occupation : Agril
R/o. Dongaon, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Vithabai w/o Vithal Nikam,
Age : 67 years, Occupation : Agril
R/o. Dongaon, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad.
3. Shantabai w/o Daulat Felke,
Age : 57 years, Occu : Agril
R/o. Dongaon, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad.
4. Jijabai w/o Dadarao Gawali,
Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agril
R/o. Lohgaon, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad.
(Petitioner No.2 is G.P.A. holder for
Petitioner Nos.1,3 and 4) PETITIONER
(Original Plaintiffs)
VERSUS
1. Karbhari S/o. Ambadas Shejwal
Age : 72 years, Occupation : Agril As per Court Order
R/o. Dongaon, Tq. Kannad dtd. 03/08/18, R.No.1 abated
Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Shrihari S/o. Ambadas Shejwal
Age : 52 years, Occupation :Agri
R/o. Dongaon, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad.
3. Sunil S/o. Karbhari Shejwal
Age : 35 years, Occu : Agril
R/o. Dongaon, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad.
4. Ganesh S/o. Shrihari Shejwal
Age : 34 years, Occu : Agril
R/o. Dongaon, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad. (Org. Defendants Nos.1 to 4)
5. Shantabai W/o Nathu Manke
Age : 82 years, Occu : Household
R/o. Barkatpur, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad.
1/4
::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2021 03:47:43 :::
929.WP.9993.15.odt
6. Kalabai W/o Rama Murkute
Age : 67 years, Occu : Household
R/o. Wangi (K), Tq. Silod
Dist. Aurangabad.
7. Shivaji s/o. Rama Mengate,
Age : 49 years, Occu : Agril
R/o. Lohgaon, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad. (Org. Plaintiffs Nos.5 to 7)
8. Janardhan S/o. Ramrao Pawar,
Age : 51 years, Occupation: Agril
R/o. Bahirgaon, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad.
9. Kantabai w/o Tejrao Borse,
Age : 57 years, Occupation: Agril
R/o. Jamadi, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad.
10. Chaturabai w/o Bhanudas Pawar,
Age : 63 years, Occupation: Agril
R/o. Bahirgaon, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad.
11. Aruna W/o Tukaram Shelke,
Age : 36 years, Occupation: Agril
R/o. Sakharkheda, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad.
12. Ashok S/o. Bhanudas Pawar,
Age : 38 years, Occupation : Agril
R/o. Bahirgaon, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad.
13. Abasaheb S/o Bhanudas Pawar,
Age : 34 years, Occupation: Agril
R/o. Bahirgaon, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad.
14. Sangita w/o Abadas Bhusare,
Age : 32 years, Occupation : Agril
R/o. Shelgaon, Tq. Kannad
Dist. Aurangabad. (Added defendant Nos.5 to 11)
RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Umesh Bodkhe
Advocate for Respondent Nos.8 to 14 : Ms. S.L. Bhilange
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 24.11.2021
2/4
::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2021 03:47:43 :::
929.WP.9993.15.odt
JUDGMENT :
Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner along with the respondent Nos.5 to 7 have filed a
suit against the respondent Nos.1 to 4 seeking perpetual injunction
restraining them from causing obstruction to their peaceful possession in the
suit property. The respondent Nos.8 to 14, asserting their right, title and
interest in the suit property filed an application seeking to be impleaded
under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. By the impugned order
the trial court has allowed the Application.
3. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused
the papers. As can be seen from the plaint, the plaintiffs have given a
genealogy showing that they are heirs of deceased Kondiba. The respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 i.e. the defendants are stated to be the sons of Ambadas who was
the brother of Kondiba. Asserting that they have been in lawful possession
of the suit property they have prayed for perpetual injunction. They have
also sought to assail the will purportedly executed by Kondiba in favour of
the respondent No.1 Karbhari.
4. The respondents intervenors in their application have given a
genealogy asserting their right and title to the suit property but ex-facie the
plaintiffs or the defendants are nowhere to be found in the genealogy. Going
by the pleadings, the suit can certainly be decided finally even in the
absence of the intervenors.
5. Needless to state that if at all the respondent intervenors have
any right, title or interest in the self same property which is in dispute, they
have every right to put up their grievance and seek appropriate relief by a
separate suit. Allowing them to intervene in the present suit would certainly
vex it.
929.WP.9993.15.odt
6. All these facts and circumstances which are germane to the
request for intervention under Order I Rule 10 have been overlooked by the
learned Judge while passing the impugned order. Since the respondent
intervenors are not necessary or even formal parties, their presence instead
of facilitating the Court to adjudicate the suit would create complications
and protract the litigation.
7. The impugned order being perverse, arbitrary and illegal is
quashed and set aside. The application of the respondent intervenor is
rejected. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
8. The Civil Application is disposed of.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
habeeb
