IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.15577/2016]

BABUBHAI MOHANLAL CHOKSEY (DEAD)

THR. LRS. …Appellant(s)

VERSUS PRANSUKHLAL MOHANLAL CHOKSEY (DEAD)

THR. LRS & ORS. …Respondent(s)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15595/2016]

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This order will dispose of two appeals. Challenge in both the appeals is to the common order dated 03.03.2016 passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP Nos.7605 of Signature Not Verified D N i I g D it H a I l l A y H si U gn JA ed by 2014 and 9632 of 2014.

Date: 2025.08.23

13:06:05 IST Reason:

3. The grievance of the appellant(s)/plaintiff and original defendants, was against an order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay in a suit¹ vide which an application respondent nos.1 and 2 herein, for being impleaded as defendants in the suit, was allowed.

4. The order passed by the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court, which has been impugned in the present appeals.

5. The appeals have been filed by the defendant nos.1 to 4 as well as the plaintiff. In present appeals, the original parties to the suit are objecting impleadment of the present respondent nos.1 and 2, in the aforesaid suit.

6. The lis started with filing of a civil suit by Babubhai Mohanlal Choksey (now dead) through his younger brother – Pransukhlal Mohanlal Choksey as his attorney, on 01.10.1994. The prayers made in this suit are reproduced hereunder:

“(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the plaintiff is the sole owner of the suit property more particularly described in Exhibit -'A' hereto;

(b) that the defendants do not have any right, 1 Suit No.9004 of 1994 title or interest in the suit property described in Exhibit 'A' hereto;

(c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that Plaintiff’s declaration dated 11.6.84, the power of Attorney dated 11.6.1984, by plaintiff to the defendants 2 and 3 are illegal null, void and of no legal effect and not binding upon the plaintiff and that the defendants 1, 2 and 3 are not entitled to act under the same;

(d) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the plaintiff has validly terminated the Power of attorney granted by the plaintiff to the defendants No.2 and 3 by the telegrams both dated 23.7.1994 addressed to the defendant Nos.2 and 3;

(e) The defendants by themselves, their agents and servants be restrained by a permanent order and injunction from in any manner acting upon or under the certificate of sale dated 17.5.1984, the Declaration dated 11.6.1984, the Power of Attorney dated 11.6.1984, in respect of the suit property at Exhibit 'A' hereto, and/or doing all acts, deeds, and things under the aforesaid said documents for the development of the suit property or otherwise; (f) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present suit the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay be appointed Receiver of the suit property under Order 40, of Civil Procedure Code excluding the Power of sale;

(g) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present suit the defendants by themselves, servants and agents be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from acting in any manner whatsoever under certificate of sale dated 27.5.1984 the declaration and the Power of Attorney both dated 11.6.1984;

(h) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present suit, the defendants, by themselves, their agents and servants be restrained by an order and injunction from dealing with, disposing, or, alienating, encumbering, creating third party rights and/or inducting any person or persons in any manner whatsoever in respect of in or upon the suit property, Exhibit 'A' hereto;

(i) for ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (f)

to (h);

(j) for costs of this suit;

(k) for such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

7. The property in question was purchased in the name of p