Kirit Purshotam Kapadia v. Marut D. Mehta And ANR.

31. WP 9022-2015.doc Wakodikar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9022 OF 2015 Kirit Purshotam Kapadia ....

Petitioner.

V/s.

Marut D. Mehta and others.

....

Respondents.

Mr. V. Y. Sanglikar I/b. Ms. Vaishali A. Ugale, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. V. Sankpal alongwith Mr. Ankush Saraf, Advocate for the respondents.

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.

DATED : 30th APRIL, 2019.

P.C. :

1.

The order dated 20/03/2019 was made on the basis that dispute No.996 of 2005 will not be disposed of on the basis of Consent Terms to be filed on behalf of the original disputant and the society. It is for this reason that the impleadment of the petitioner was permitted. 2.

From paragraph 4 of the order dated 20/03/2019, this position was made clear. However, some ambiguity arises because paragraph 4 primarily refers to the contentions of Mr. R. V. Sankpal, Learned Counsel for respondent No.1/disputant. 3.

Accordingly, it is clarified that the dispute No.996 of 2005 will have to be disposed of on its own merits. Further, if the original 1/2

31. WP 9022-2015.doc disputant, does not wish to proceed with the dispute, which is, the same thing as getting the dispute disposed of by filing the Consent Terms, the Co-operative Court to consider, permitting the petitioner to transpose himself as a disputant and on that basis, to continue with the dispute. If such clarification is not issued, then, it is apparent, the original disputant and the society, will defeat the order dated 20/03/2019 which, in fact, was made on the basis of their own concessions, or at-least, on the basis of concession made by respondent No.1/disputant. 4.

With the aforesaid clarification, the praecipe is disposed of. (M. S. SONAK, J.) 2/2