Smt. Shobha Ashok Sugandhi And Ors vs P. Prabhakaran And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 1160 Bom

                  Digitally signed by
      IRESH       IRESH SIDDHARAM
      SIDDHARAM   MASHAL
                  Date: 2022.02.01
      MASHAL      16:37:00 +0530




                                                                        12.601.22 WP.doc

ISM
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 601 OF 2022

           SMT. SHOBHA ASHOK SUGANDHI AND                       ....PETITIONERS
           ORS

                     V/s.

           P. PRABHAKARAN AND ANR                               .....RESPONDENTS

           Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar a/w Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar a/w Vaishnavi
           Gujrathi advocate for the Petitioner
           Mr. P. S. Dani, Senior Advocate i/b Prasad Kulkarni for Respondents

                                        CORAM :   NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                        DATE:     FEBRUARY 1, 2022.

           P.C.:

           1)        Petitioner, a third party, took out Exh. 18, an application for

impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 in Special Civil Suit No. 249/2019 pending on the file of CJSD

Panvel. Said Application Exh. 18 came to be rejected vide impugned

order dated 23/12/2021. As such, this petition.

2) Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel for the Petitioners would urge

that the lis to be adjudicated between the parties in the aforesaid

Suit cannot be effectively looked into unless the Petitioner, an

appropriate or necessary party is impleaded. According to him, Suit

12.601.22 WP.doc

property was owned by Petitioners' father Ashok who alleged to have

transferred the same in favour of Respondent-Plaintiff vide sale deed

dated 19/06/2001. It is claimed that Petitioners are in possession of

the Suit property. Even if R.C.S. No. 626/2012 is dismissed, Appeal

against the same is pending adjudication. That being so, he would

claim that it is necessary to add him as party defendant.

3) Mr. Dani, learned senior counsel for the respondent would

oppose the claim and supports the order impugned.

4) I have considered the submissions.

5) R.C.S. No. 626/2012 preferred by the present petitioner

suffered dismissal vide Judgment and Decree dated 29/01/2021. In

the said Decree, following issues were determined.

      Sr.No.           Issues                                Findings
      1.         Whether the plaintiffs prove that           No
                 sale deed bearing registration              (As not
                 No. 4076/2001 dated 19/06/2001              proved)
                 is sham, bogus and illegal?

2. Whether the plaintiffs have right to file No. the suit on behalf of the company? (As not proved)

12.601.22 WP.doc

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that sale No. deed bearing registration No. 4076/2001 (As not dated 19/06/2001 is not binding on them? Proved)

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get No. relief of cancellation of sale deed bearing registration No. 4076/2001 dated 19/06/2001?

5. Is the plaintiff entitled for perpetual No. injunction as prayed?

       6.        What order and decree?                       The suit
                                                           is dismissed.


6)    Respondent-Plaintiff is also party to the said proceedings being

R.C.S. No. 626/2012 and I am informed that Appeal against the same

is pending adjudication. As such, petitioner has every right to get his

legal enforcebale right adjudicated in the pending Appeal against

Respondent who is Plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 249/2019.

7) In that view of the matter and having regard to the subject

matter of both these suits is same, no case for interference in

extraordinary jurisdiction is made out. Petition fails, stands rejected.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]