SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Bom) 2364

V.L.ACHLIYA
Santosh – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Commissioner – Respondent


JUDGMENT

V.L. Achliya, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsels for petitioner and respondent no. 2 heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-original plaintiff has challenged the order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the 9th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in R.C.S. No. 280/2016. By the impugned order, the trial Court has allowed the application (Exh. 30) moved by the respondent No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "C.P.C.") to join him as a party defendant no.2 to the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 2. No notice issued to respondent no. 1 as presence of respondent No. 1 not required for disposal of petition.

4. Before adverting to deal with the submissions advanced, it is useful to refer few facts leading to filing of this petition. The petitioner-plaintiff herein has filed the civil suit seeking declaration and injunction as against the respondent no. 1 -Municipal Corporation to effect that the notice dated 28.04.2016 issued by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top