MILIND N. JADHAV
Suresh Vamanrao Gaikwad – Appellant
Versus
Karva Developers, through Shri Devkisan Brijlaal Karwa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
1. Heard Mr. Limaye, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Ms. Joshi, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.
2. The present Writ Petition impugns order dated 11.01.2024 passed in Application filed below Exhibit-17 in Regular Civil Appeal No.448 of 2016 (for short 'RCA') by the Writ Petitioner - a third party, whose name is Suresh Waman Gaikwad seeking his impleadment as co-Appellant in the RCA as well as Defendant in the Suit proceeding which is decreed by the trial Court. Suit is originally instituted as Special Civil Suit No.121 of 1997 seeking specific performance of contract against Appellants in RCA by Respondents therein. For the sake of convenience parties shall be referred to as ‘Plaintiff, Defendants and third Party (Petitioner before me)’. Suit is filed by Plaintiff in the year 1997, seeking specific performance of Agreement against Defendants, who are nomenclatured as Respondent Nos.2 to 5 before me in the Writ Petition, in respect of land admeasuring 8649 sq. mtrs. out of 9982 sq.mtrs., situated within the jurisdiction of Nashik Municipal Corporation/Limits at Deolali. After a full leng
Amit Kumar Shaw and Another Vs. Farida Khatoo and Another
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sajeev Builders Private Limited and Others
Thomson Press (India) Limited Vs. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and Others
Kasturi Vs. Uyyamperumal and Ors.
Vidur Impex and Traders (P) Ltd. Vs. Tosh Apartment (P) Ltd.
A third party seeking impleadment must demonstrate a direct legal interest in the case, and the court retains discretion to allow or deny such applications based on the specifics of the case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impleadment of a party is not necessary if no legal right has been created in their favor, and their presence is not required to effective....
The decision to allow subsequent purchasers as parties in specific performance suits is justified when they demonstrate a semblance of title or interest to the property, supporting effective judicial....
The court affirmed the principle that parties with substantial interest must be joined for effective adjudication in specific performance suits, emphasizing judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10.
The court ruled that third parties may be necessary in specific performance suits to avoid multiplicity of litigation, allowing their impleadment and amendment of the suit.
Agreement to Sell – There is no absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed, no third person can be impleaded as party to suit – In order to avoid multiplicity of proc....
In specific performance actions, a power of attorney holder does not automatically constitute a necessary party unless there is evidence of property interest; late amendments are permissible only wit....
An applicant seeking impleadment must demonstrate a direct legal interest and right to relief concerning the controversy in a suit; absence of such a link renders the request for impleadment invalid.
A person claiming no right or interest in the subject matter of the suit Agreement, and having no obligation or liability under the Agreement, is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in a sui....
Point of Law : Presence of the transferee pendent lite is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the suit and issues involved therein and the court below has exercised its discretion in....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.