Bombay High CourtWP/1749/2019dismissed

Smt. Saista Begum W/O Akbar Ali v. Shri Rajkumar S/O Asaramji Mundle And Others

2023-01-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote2 pages

(1) 64wp1749.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1749 OF 2019 Saista Begum Akbar Ali _ Vs. _Rajkumar Asaramji Mundle and ors --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.N.Ansari, Advocate for petitioner Mr. P.S.Tiwari, Advocate for Respondent No.1 CORAM :

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 04/01/2023 1] Heard Mr. Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.1. None for other respondent though served. 2] The petition challenges the impugned order dated 10.04.2018 (pg.54), whereby the application of the petitioner for impleading herself as a party to the execution proceedings viz. Regular Darkhast No. 2/2015 has been rejected by the learned Executing Court. 3] Mr. Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was a party to Regular Civil Suit No. 9/2012, decided on 13.08.2014, the decree as passed therein is put to execution in R.D. No.2/2015, and in order to protect her interest, she would be a necessary party.

4] It is material to note that though the petitioner was party Defendant No.5 in R.C.S. No.

(2) 64wp1749.19 9/2012, the decree dated 13.08.2014 passed therein is not against the present petitioner, but is against the defendant Nos.1 to 4 therein.

5] That being the position, the decree has rightly been put to execution against the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in R.C.S. No. 9/2012. The petitioner/defendant No.5 in R.C.S. No. 9/2012 therefore is neither necessary nor a proper party for execution of decree. I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE Rvjalit Digitally sign byRAJESH VASANTRAO JALIT Location: