← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/8483/2023disposed off

Gunabai Apparao Waghmare Since Died Through Lrs Milind Apparao Waghmare v. The State Of Maharashtra Through District Collector Latur And Others

2023-07-24Hon'Ble Shri Justice N. B. Suryawanshi2 pages

{1} 7-WP-8483-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8483 OF 2023 Gunabai Apparao Waghmare Since Died Through Lrs Milind Apparao Waghmare Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Maharashtra Through District Collector Latur And Others Respondents Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. S.R. Yadav Lonikar, AGP for respondent-State. .......

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 24 th JULY, 2023 ORDER :

1.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur, below Exhibit144 in Regular Civil Suit No. 117/2004, thereby impleading respondent Nos. 7 and 8 as party to the suit. 2.

Petitioner has filed suit for specific performance as General Power of Attorney holder of his mother. After the death of mother, petitioner was brought on record as legal representative of deceased mother. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, real sisters of the petitioner filed application seeking their impleadment in the suit. The application was allowed. Hence, the Bhagyawant Punde

{2} 7-WP-8483-2023 present petition.

3.

Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for State. Perused the memo of writ petition, its annexures and the impugned order. 4.

Admittedly, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are real sisters of the petitioner and hence they are legal representatives of original plaintiff/deceased mother. Therefore, being legal representatives they are entitled to be brought on record. However, by the impugned order they are brought on record as party defendants. Be that as it may, no ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere in the impugned order. 5.

Apprehension of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are claiming their share in the suit property in this suit is misconceived. Perusal of application filed by respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and the impugned order, does not indicate so in any manner. There is no illegality or perversity in the order impugned in the present petition. No case is made out by the petitioner to warrant interference in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] Bhagyawant Punde