Baban Bhagwant Sonawane Thou Constituted Attorney Nandu Baban Sonawane v. Shivram Aananda Sonawane And ORS

1 / 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2653 OF 2023 Baban Bhagwant Sonawane .... Petitioner versus Shivram Aananda Sonawane & Ors.

.... Respondents .......

• Mr. Vivek V. Salunke, Advocate for Petitioner.

CORAM

: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 06th MARCH, 2023 P.C. :

1.

The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 17/02/2022 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, below Ex.93. The Petitioner had filed an application vide Ex.93 in Special Civil Suit No.1369 of 2015. He wanted himself to be included as a party in the said suit under Order 1, Rule 10 and Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was his contention that the Survey No.44/2 situated at Kirkatwadi was converted into Gat No.400. It is a Mahar Vatan land and the Revenue Department had included his grandfather' s name in the said land record after due enquiry. He had undivided share in Digitally signed by MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR Date:

2023.03.10 11:18:47 +0530 MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR the said land. The Special Civil Suit No.1369/2015 was filed in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, by Shivram Nesarikar

2 / 3 Sonawane and three others against 8 Defendants. It was for cancellation of the sale deed by which the Defendant Nos.2 to 8 had sold their share to the Defendant No.1. The Plaintiffs also sought to exercise right of preemption to purchase the other shares.

2.

Heard Mr. Vivek V. Salunke, learned counsel for Petitioner. 3.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the Petitioner is claiming undivided share in the same property, he was also necessary party.

4.

I have considered these submissions in the light of the observations made by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order passed below Ex.93. I have also perused the application preferred by the Petitioner before the Trial Court. In that application, apart from mentioning that he had undivided share in the property survey No.44/2, which was changed to Gat No.400, the Petitioner had also mentioned that he had independent right because his predecessor'

s name was entered

3 / 3 into the revenue record. The Petitioner himself had filed his own RCS No.208/2017 against Shivram Sonawane and others. The right which he is claiming in RCS No.208/2017 in respect of the same land is entirely different. That suit is proceeding independently. The learned Trial Judge had not granted interim relief in that suit.

5.

I have considered the reasoning given by the Trial Judge. As mentioned by the Petitioner himself in his application, he is claiming his right in this particular land on a totally different ground, in the Special Civil Suit No.1369/2015. Therefore, his application for being added as a Defendant in Special Civil Suit No.1369/2015 was rejected. It was rejected on sound reasoning.

6.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the Petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)