AGK v. Deepak Rajaram Dhamane & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 1 r. 10
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. No costs. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 2
Judgment
Mr. Narayan G. Rokade for the petitioners. CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED :SEPTEMBER 20, 2023 P.C.:
The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order of rejection of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC” for short) in an appeal dismissing suit for declaration of ownership and for possession of half share.
The petitioner claims to be impleaded in the appeal based on agreement to sell in relation to which he has already filed a suit for specific performance. The Appellate Court rejected the application relying on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Jagannath Khanderao Kedar & Ors v. Gopinath Bhimaji Kedear & Ors. reported in 2022 (4) ABR 551.
On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the right claimed by the petitioner to implead himself in an appeal against 1 dismissal of the suit is based on agreement to sell. The agreement to sell does not create interest in the property. The person claiming his right based on agreement to sell is not a necessary party in a suit for declaration of ownership and for delivery of half share of the suit property. If the petitioner succeeds in his suit, equities in relation to suit property will be adjusted by the executing Court causing no prejudice to the petitioner.
The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. No costs. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 2
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 1 r. 10.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 20 Sep 2023. The bench was AMIT BORKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.