Shankar Kashinath Kolge And ... vs Dattatray Kashinath Kolge And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14516 Bom

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.8037 OF 2020

1.     Shankar Kashinath Kolge,
       Age : 27 years, Occu. Nil,
       R/o Keshegaon, Taluka and
       District Osmanabad

2.     Kavirabai w/o Kashinath Kolge,
       Age : 59 years, Occu. Household,
       R/o Keshegaon, Taluka and
       District Osmanabad

3.     Meerabai w/o Ravi Falke,
       Age : 34 years, Occu. Household,
       R/o Mohi, Tq. Khed, District Pune

4.     Manisha w/o Arjun Gangakhade,
       Age : 30 years, Occu. Household,
       R/o Bakuri, Tq. Haveli,                               PETITIONERS
       District Pune                                        (Orig. Plaintiffs)

       VERSUS

1.     Dattatray s/o Kashinath Kolge,
       Age : 37 years, Occu. Driver,
       R/o Wadgaon (S), Taluka and
       District Osmanabad

2.    Kaashinath s/o Vishvanath Kolge,
      Age : 64 years, Occu. Agri.
      R/o Keshegaon, Taluka and                              RESPONDENTS
      District Osmanabad                                   (Orig. Defendants)
                                     ----
Mr. Satish P. Dhobale, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. S.J. Salgare, Advocate for respondent No.1
                                     ----

                                    CORAM :    MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 05.10.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT :

                                           2                   WP8037-2020.odt
                Heard.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally

with the consent of the learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned

Advocate for respondent No.1.

3. In a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the

petitioners, they filed an application (Exh-46) seeking to add one Gokarna

Laxman Bhusare as defendant No.3 in the suit. By the impugned order, the

learned Judge has rejected that application for the only reason that the

application did not contain the particulars and the reasons why and how

she was necessary party and was to be impleaded as such.

4. It transpires that during cross-examination of the petitioner, a

specific suggestion was put to him that she is the married daughter of

defendant No.2. The learned Judge seems to have been pedantic rather

than being pragmatic while deciding the application.

5. Considering the above state-of-affairs, when the information

regarding impleadment of Gokarna Laxman Bhusare was solicited during

cross-examination of the petitioner on behalf of respondent No.1, no

prejudice can be said to be likely to be caused to him by her impleadment

in the suit.

6. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed

and set aside. The Trial Court shall now permit the petitioners to implead

3 WP8037-2020.odt Gokarna Laxman Bhusare as defendant No.3 in the suit.

7. The Rule is made absolute.

[MANGESH S. PATIL] JUDGE

npj/WP8037-2020.odt