Mangla Rameshji Saraswat And Another v. Dr. Shriniwas Bansilalji Saraswat And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 955 WRIT PETITION NO. 396 OF 2026 Mangla Rameshji Saraswat And Another

VERSUS

Dr. Shriniwas Bansilalji Saraswat And Others ...

Advocate for Petitioners:Mr. Sanket Kuklkarni h/f S.S. Kulkarni ...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

Dated : January 14, 2026 PER COURT :- 1.

Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalna below exhibit 39 in Special Civil Suit No.350 of 2025 by which respondent no.10 is directed to be impleaded as party defendant in the suit.

2.

Petitioners are plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit no.350 of 2025 filed before Civil Judge Senior Division, at Jalna. Suit is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the agricultural land bearing survey no.358/1 and house property bearing CTS no.9689 and for further relief. 3.

Respondent no.10-Ambika Urban Multistate Cooperative Credit Society filed application below exhibit-39 for impleading as party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code in

suit contending that defendant nos.1 and 2 have borrowed loan from bank and executed registered mortgage-deed in respect of suit property i.e. CTS No.9689. As such, they have semblance of right in the property which is subject matter of suit. Trial Court allowed said application observing that respondent no.10 has vested right in the suit property in view of registered mortgage-deed and their presence would be necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute between parties.

4.

Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate appearing for petitioners would submit that in a suit for partition and separate possession, respondent no.10 cannot assert that he is necessary party. Once the persons having right in family property are added, decree can pass in the partition suit. The respondent no.10 claims on the basis of mortgage-deed executed by defendant nos.1 and 2. They can independently set up their right. The dispute in the suit can be decided in absence of respondent no.10.

5.

Although, there is substance in contention of Mr. Kulkarni that respondent no.10 is not necessary party, fact remains that in view of registered mortgaged-deed executed by

defendant nos.1 and 2, respondent no.10 has acquired right in the property. Therefore, while passing the decree for partition and give quietus to litigation between parties, presence of respondent no.10 would be necessary. Therefore, respondent no.10 can be termed as 'proper party.' Reasoning given by the Trial Court while passing impugned order is in tune with settled position of law. No jurisdictional error is found requiring interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition stands rejected. ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) ...

AAA/-