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

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SHRI YOGI DARSHAN MAKWANA NAGAR CHSL – Appellant
Versus
SHRI KARSANDAS CHAGANLAL (SINCE DECD.) THROUGH HIS LRS AND REPRESENTATIVES) AND ORS – Respondent
CAW 13/2019



Advocates:
['PRADEEP J THORAT', 'SAMEER RAMESH BHALEKAR', '', 'RESP NO', 'RANJANA PARIKH']

11.a13.19.doc

Shiv

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13 OF 2019

IN

WRIT PETITION NO.2008 OF 1997

Yogi Darshan Makwana Nagar CHSL

… Applicant

Versus

Karsandas Chaganlal (Decd.)

Through his LRs & Ors.

… Respondents

Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat for the Applicant.

Mr. Sameer R. Bhalekar for Respondent No.3.

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.

DATED : 15TH JULY 2022

P.C. :

1.

Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant/Obstructionist and

learned Advocate for proposed Respondent No.3.

2.

By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged an order passed by the

Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. As per the said

judgment, the order of Executing Court directing removal of obstruction

caused by the Obstructionist and making obstructionist notice absolute

was confirmed. The suit filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 for recovery of

possession of open plot of land was decreed.

3.

During pendency of the present Petition filed at the instance of

obstructionist, Respondent No.1(a) has executed deed of assignment on

8th August 2012 thereby transferring the suit property in favour of

proposed Respondent No.3. Even Respondent No.1(a) Vijayaben Solanki

expired and her legal representatives are impleaded. None appears for

them.

4.

A copy of the registered deed is annexed to the application. The

1/2

HEMANT

CHANDERSEN

SHIV

Digitally signed

by HEMANT

CHANDERSEN

SHIV

Date: 2022.07.20

15:40:45 +0530

11.a13.19.doc

learned Advocate for the assignee/proposed Respondent No.3 admits

execution of the said deed. In view of that Respondent No.3 needs to be

joined as party Respondent because they must be interested in execution of

the decree. Hence the application is allowed. Respondent No.3 may be

joined as party Respondent. Necessary amendment be carried out in the

Writ Petition within 14 days. The amended copies of Writ Petition be

served on Respondent No.3 as well as to other Respondents through their

Advocate. The learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 waives notice in the

Writ Petition.

(S. M. MODAK, J.)

2/2

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top