← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/11529/2014dismissed

Lodha Dwellers Private Limited v. Ramesh Nanulal Khandelwal And ORS

2018-07-10Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Mridula Bhatkar2 pages

503.WP11529_2014.doc Vidya Amin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 11529 OF 2014 Lodha Dwellers Private Ltd.

... Petitioner Vs.

Ramesh Nanulal Khandelwal & Ors.

... Respondents Mr. Toran Diwan i/b. Veritas Legal, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATE: 10th July, 2018.

P.C.:

This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 13th December, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Kalyan thereby rejecting the Application, which is marked as Exhibit

25. The petitioner has filed the Application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that he be impleaded as partydefendant in Special Civil Suit No. 127 of 2010. The said Application was rejected. Hence, this Writ Petition.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is assignee of developmental rights from the defendants, who are the owners of the land and the petitioner is in possession of the said land. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has filed the suit for specific performance against the defendants/respondent 1 / 2

503.WP11529_2014.doc nos. 2 and 3. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a necessary party in the matter and he be impleaded. 3.

Perused the plaint, prayers, Application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and the impugned order. The petitioner claims his right under the Development Agreement which was executed between him and the defendants/respondent nos. 2 and 3. The defendants are the land owners, who as per the case of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance. The view taken by the trial Court that presence of the petitioner is not required to adjudicate the issues. Therefore, the issue of possibility of multiplicity of proceedings is irrelevant cannot be faulted with. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 2 / 2