Mukesh Hariram Bansal v. Pankaj Kantilal Gupta And ORS

16-wp-8386-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8386 OF 2025 Mukesh Hariram Bansal ...

Petitioner V/s.

Pankaj Kantilal Gupta and Ors.

...

Respondents ------------------- Mr. Shailesh Redekar with Kamal Chaudhary, for the petitioner. --------------------

CORAM

:

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2025.07.03 09:45:55 +0530 DATE :

2nd JULY 2025 VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD PC:

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2.

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 22nd January 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mumbai whereby an application preferred by the plaintiff to delete the name of deceased plaintiff no.3 from the array of the plaintiffs, came to be allowed.

3.

The suit has been instituted for recovery of possession of the demised premises. The Trial Court has held that the right to sue survives to the rest of the plaintiffs, and the suit would not abate. Therefore, the plaintiffs were permitted to delete the name of deceased varsha

16-wp-8386-2025.doc plaintiff no.3 from the array of the plaintiffs, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2000/- to be paid to the defendant. 4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was deliberate suppression of factum of death of plaintiff no. 3. Even if it is assumed that the plaintiffs suppressed the factum of death of plaintiff no. 3, for a long period, yet, in the facts of the case, the view taken by the learned Judge is correct. Having regard to the nature of the suit, the suit would not abate, on the death of plaintiff no. 3. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

5.

The petition stands dismissed.

(N.J. JAMADAR, J) varsha