Vishakha W/O Dinesh Shelke v. Mrudula Prakash Patil And Others

1 jg.w.p. 2772.2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

Writ Petition No. 2772 of 2021 Mrs. Vishakha w/o Dinesh Shelke aged about : 42 years Occupation : House hold R/O Saurabh Colony, near Ram Mandir Parisar, Post office V. M. V.

Amravati Tq. & Dist. Amravati.

... Petitioner ... Versus ...

(1) Smt. Mrudula Prakash Patil age 63 years Occ. House wife

(2) Rushikesh Prakash Patil aged 37 years occupation : Medical Practitioner, Both respondents 1 & 2 are R/o Plot No. 10, Dattatray Nagar, Lohara, Yavatmal Tq. & Dist. Yavatmal.

(3) Sau. Prajakta Sujay Band age 39 years Occ : private service R/o Flat No. 201, Sukhkarta Apartment, 42 Jiveshwar Colony near water tank, Arjun Nagar, Amravati Tq. & Dist. Amravati.

(4) Vilas Dinkar Patil aged : 74 years Occu : pensioner

(5) Vijendra Vilas Patil aged : 37 years Occ. Business Respondents No. 4 &5 are R/o near Garden Glory Circuit House Road Camp, Amravati Tq. & Dist. Amravati.

2 jg.w.p. 2772.2021.odt Second address :- 103/104, Ist Floor, D Wing, Rachana Residency Camp Camp Amravati Tq. & Dist. Amravati.

... Respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. V. A. Kothale, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P. S. Patil, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 Mr. M. Anilkumar, Advocate for respondents 4 and 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATED : 21 - 2 -202 ORAL JUDGMENT Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2.

In a suit for declaration, partition and separate possession instituted by Smt. Mrudula Prakash Patil and Rushikesh Prakash Patil, the petitioner, who is the daughter of defendant 1 Vilas Dinkar Patil, sought impleadment as defendant 3 on the premise that she is also a coparcener having share and interest in the ancestral property. 3.

The applicant was right in so asserting. However, by the order impugned, her application is rejected. It is difficult to appreciate much less agree with the reasons recorded in the order impugned. However, lest there be any prejudice to any party, I refrain from making

3 jg.w.p. 2772.2021.odt any positive observation except to observe that the plaintiff certainly has a right to participate in the proceedings. 4.

The order impugned is quashed.

5.

Application, Exhibit 52 in Special Civil Suit 49/2019 is allowed and the plaintiffs are directed to implead the petitioner as defendant 3.

6.

Considering the nature of controversy and the inter se relationship, the trial Judge is requested to proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible.

7.

The petition is disposed of.

JUDGE wasnik YUVRAJ WASNIK