Prakash S/O Chindhuji Gajbhiye vs Ravindra S/O Shripat Borkar And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 117 Bom

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 117 Bom
Judgement Date : 4 January, 2023

Bombay High Court

Prakash S/O Chindhuji Gajbhiye vs Ravindra S/O Shripat Borkar And ... on 4 January, 2023

Bench: Avinash G. Gharote

                                                                 1                  1-wp-17-23.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 17 OF 2023

                             Prakash s/o Chinduji Gajbhiye
                                           Vs.
                         Ravindra s/o Shripat Borkar and others

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                          Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders

                                  Mr. I.G. Meshram, Advocate for petitioner



                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 4th JANUARY, 2023

Heard Mr. Meshram, learned counsel for the petitioner. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner, at the appellate stage has been rejected by the impugned order dated 30/07/2022 (page

86). Mr. Meshram, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner was a proper and necessary party to the suit and since the appeal is in continuation of the suit, he should be permitted to defend the appeal.

2. It is an admitted position that the suit was filed on 08/06/2007. The sale deed is dated 13/06/2007 in favour of the petitioner. The suit was decided on 30/08/2017. During this entire duration while the suit was pending, the petitioner, did not 2 1-wp-17-23.odt

choose to get himself impleaded and chose to abide by the decision which was rendered by the judgment dated 30/08/2017. The vendor of the petitioner, is already a party in the appeal and any decision, in the appeal would equally be binding upon the petitioner, as he has chosen to purchase a property during the pendency of the suit. I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE

MP Deshpande

Digitally signed by:MILIND P DESHPANDE Signing Date:05.01.2023 10:26