Bombay High Court
Smt. Lilabai Shreeram Kale And ... vs Bhanudas S/O Dnyanba Bhalerao And ... on 6 October, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
66. WP 3821 of 2017.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO.152/2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3821/2017
Smt. Lilabai Shreeram Kale and another
...Versus...
Bhanudas S/o Dnyanba Bhalerao and others
with
WRIT PETITION NO.4525/2022
Pandurang S/o Dnyanba Bhalerao and another
...Versus...
Bhanudas S/o Dnyanba Bhalerao (Dead) through his legal heirs
Sou. Shashikalabai W/o Vishnudas Bhalerao
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Shri A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners in WP No.3821/2017
Shri R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for petitioners in WP No.4525/2022
Shri B.N. Mohta, Advocate for respondents in both petitions
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 06/10/2022
1. The civil application seeks to bring on record the
legal heirs of respondent no.1 - Bhanudas Dnyanba Bhalerao,
who has passed away on 16/09/2019.
2. Learned counsel for the other side has no
objection, considering which, the civil application is allowed.
The addition be carried out forthwith.
66. WP 3821 of 2017.odt
3. Advocate Shri Mohta, waives service of notice for
the newly added respondents (legal heirs of respondent no.1
Bhanudas Dnyanba Bhalerao).
WRIT PETITION NO.3821/2017
1. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Shri Mohta, learned counsel for the
respondents. The petition challenges the order dated
23/08/2016 below Exh.66, whereby the application filed by
the petitioners for being added as defendants in Regular Civil
Suit No.172/2013 has been rejected on the ground that the
enquiry in that regard is a limited one and therefore in the suit
for eviction filed by the respondent no.1, the
sisters/petitioners may not be necessary parties. The addition
was sought, on the ground that the property is ancestral in
nature and therefore the petitioners also have a share therein
and they were not assured of the bona fides of the
plaintiff/respondent no.1 in prosecuting the proceedings,
which according to them was for his own benefit.
2. It is also not in dispute that the original
respondent Bhanudas Dnyanba Bhalerao who was the plaintiff
in Regular Civil Suit No.172/2013 is the defendant no.1 in
Regular Civil Suit No.172/2015, which is a suit filed by
66. WP 3821 of 2017.odt
Pandurang Dnyanba Bhalerao (defendant no.1 in Regular Civil
Suit No.172/2013), which is a suit for partition and separate
possession of the property in question on the ground that the
same is an ancestral property, in which the sisters are already
parties defendants. The property which is subject matter in
both the suits is the same in relation to the house CTS No.117
though the property in Regular Civil Suit No.172/2013, is
comprised of more properties. An application for consolidation
of both the suits filed in Regular Civil Suit No.172/2013 has
been rejected by the learned Trial Court which is then
challenged in Writ Petition No.4525/2022.
3. The issues framed in both the suits indicate that
the status of the property whether it is self-acquired or
ancestral, is to be decided, considering which, it would be
appropriate, if the both the suits are decided together and the
sisters are permitted to be joined as parties defendants in
Regular Civil Suit No.172/2013, considering their
apprehension as expressed above, in view of which, the
impugned order dated 23/08/2016 below Exh.66 in Regular
Civil Suit No.172/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside and
the application Exh.66 is hereby allowed. Writ Petition
No.3821/2017 therefore stands allowed.
4. Considering the commonality of the issues framed
in both the suits regarding the nature of the suit property, the
66. WP 3821 of 2017.odt
impugned order dated 28/06/2022 below Exh.126 in Regular
Civil Suit No.172/2013 is hereby set aside and the application
Exh.126 is allowed. Both the suits are consolidated and shall
be decided by common judgment. Writ Petition No.4525/2022
is also allowed.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Wadkar
Digitally signed bySHAILENDRA
SUKHADEORAO WADKAR
Signing Date:07.10.2022 19:30
