Writ Petition No. 88 of 2026 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 88 OF 2026MAHENDRA VITTHALRAO TAKANKHAR AND OTHERSVERSUSSUSHILABAI AASARAM JAWALE AND OTHERS...Mr. Vivek Vasantrao Bhavthankar, Advocate for the Petitioners.... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 07th JANUARY, 2026.P.C.:-
The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated19.08.2025 passed below Exhibit-11 by Joint Civil Judge JuniorDivision, Majalgaon in Regular Civil Suit No.238/2021, whereby application filed by petitioners seeking impleadment in suit instituted by respondents has been rejected.
Mr. Bhavthankar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that respondent nos.1 to 6 instituted suit seeking decree of declaration and perpetual injunction. The petitioners hold land on Northern side of suit property. According to Mr. Bhavthankar, 96R land owned by petitioners is likely to be affected by decree insuit. Therefore, application was made under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment. However, TrialCourt has erroneously rejected said application.
Perusal of impugned order would show that Trial Courtobserved that no prayers are made in suit that would affect rights (2) 953-wp-88-2026.odtof parties. The suit is instituted in respect of land, which is specified by four boundaries in plaint. The land owned by petitioners is not part of suit property. In that view of matter, decision in suit can be rendered without presence of petitioners. The Trial Court was of view that decree passed in present suit would not affect any rights of petitioners. In that view of matter, application came to be rejected.
Although Mr. Bhavthankar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners endeavours to impress upon this Court that decree would indirectly affect rights of petitioners, such contentions cannot be countenanced in absence of supporting material. Theview taken by Trial Court cannot be faulted. No jurisdictional error is discernible from reasoning adopted by Trial Court in impugned order. 5. In result, Writ Petition sans merit. Hence, dismissed. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/January-2026
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.