Bandu Bapurao Jambhudkar v. Namdeo Laxman Kinhekar

1 9 wp 6600.2022

IN THE HIGH

COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6600 OF 2022 Shri Bandu Bapurao Jambhudkar ..vs..

Shri Namdeo Laxman Kinhekar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM :

VINAY JOSHI , J.

DATED :

19/12/2022.

Heard.

2.

The petitioner/defendant has impugned the order dated 05.03.2021 of the Trial Court by which the application for addition of party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, came to be allowed. It is the petitioner's main grievance that the Trial Court has allowed the application without assigning any reason.

3.

True, the impugned order is bereft of reason however, it is not the petitioner's contention that the proposed party was not necessary party. It is informed that already amendment has been carried out and trial has proceeded further.

4.

In all fairness, the Trial Court ought to have assigned the reasons since assigning a reason for judicial order is heart of the process. Be that as it may, since there is no dispute that proposed party was necessary party, I do not deem it necessary to interfere

2 9 wp 6600.2022 in the impugned order.

5.

In view of that, petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.) Trupti TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL 21.12.2022 10:55