Pravin Madhav Khaire And ORS. v. Narayan Dhrama Inamdaar And ANR.

1/2 4-cwp-9596-16.doc Digitally signed by DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Date:

2022.01.24 18:19:39 +0500

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

DINESH SADANAND SHERLA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9596 OF 2016 Pravin M. Khaire and ors.

...Petitioners.

V/s.

Narayan D. Inamdar and ors.

...Respondents.

Mr. Chetan S. Damre for the Petitioners.

Mr. P.J. Thorat for Respondent Nos.1,2A and 2 B.

CORAM

:

N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE :

21.01.2022.

P.C. :

1.

This petition takes an exception to the order dated 2.2.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Nandgaon below Exhibit102 in R.C.S. No. 38 of 2007. 2.

The petitioner No.1 fled the suit seeking declaration that the Sale Deed in respect of the suit property dated 13.2.1967 executed by his grandfather Shankar Khaire in favour of the present respondents-defendants is null and void, so also for injunction and possession.

3.

At the stage of evidence of the said suit, petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are sons of said Shankar Khaire moved an application along with petitioner No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. seeking their impleadment as plaintifs to the suit. The trial Court rejected the said application by order impugned. Dinesh S. Sherla 1/2

2/2 4-cwp-9596-16.doc 4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents/defendants got executed the Sale Deed in question from Shankar Khaire by playing fraud. It is submitted that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being sons of Shankar Khaire moved an application seeking their impleadment as plaintifs. It is submitted that the trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances ought to have allowed the said application.

5.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants submits that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application. He submits that even otherwise the respondents/ defendants are not going to raise any objection that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

6.

In view of submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants and the nature of suit, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, the following order is passed.

ORDER

Writ Petition is dismissed.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.] Dinesh S. Sherla 2/2