GAJANAN MAHADEO POTDAR Vs. GOVIND MARUTI JARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition challenges the legality and validity of the order dtd. 22/10/2021 passed below Exh. 243 in Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aatpadi, District Sangli. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the four Applicants who have filed Application below Exh. 243 before the Trial Court and sought impleadment as Defendants to the suit proceedings under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC"). They are not parties to the civil Suit. Application is filed on 9/1/2018. By the impugned order, Trial Court allowed the application and directed that the Applicants be added as Defendants in the Suit. Plaintiff being aggrieved has filed the present Writ Petition to challenge the order dtd. 22/10/2021.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy, it is pertinent to refer the facts which are outlined herein under:-

(3.) Mr. Bhargude, learned Advocate for the Petitioner - Plaintiff would submit that the dispute in R.C.S. No. 14 of 2005 is entirely between the family members of Potdar family and pertains to the properties which were purchased by his father Mahadeo Potdar and by a Will bequeathed to the Plaintiff alone. He would submit that in so far as the Applicants' contention of purchase of a portion of the suit properties is concerned, Plaintiff has filed a separate substantive suit against the Applicants challenging the sale deeds executed by Defendant No. 1 in their favour. He would submit that this Court has returned a finding that the Applicants are not related with the suit property and they will have to file a distinct suit for seeking partition and separate possession of their portion and that they shall not disturb the possession of the Plaintiff. Mr. Bhargude would submit that the impugned order allowing impleadment of the Applicants to the R.C.S. No. 14 of 2005 is therefore bad in law as the trial Court has not taken into consideration that the sale deeds executed between Defendant No. 1 and the Applicants are infact in contravention and violation of the injunction order dtd. 21/8/2006 which was clarified subsequently on 9/6/2011. He would submit that perusal of the order dtd. 21/8/2006 would clearly imply that once the Appeal was allowed by the Appellate Court and the order passed below Exh. 5 (the temporary junction application) came to be set aside, it is by implication that the injunction application stood allowed. He would submit that the Defendant No.1 himself filed Writ Petition No. 676 of 2007 in this Court seeking a clarification of the order dtd. 21/8/2006. At that time in the year 2007, Defendant No.1 had not created any third party rights in the suit properties. He would submit that it is very clear that only to frustrate the civil suit filed by Mahadeo which was pending in this Court and pursuant to Mahadeo's demise on 18/10/2007, Defendant No. 1 has surreptitiously transferred his share in the suit properties to the Applicants despite having clear knowledge of the order dtd. 21/8/2006 passed by the Appellate Court allowing the Appeal filed by the Plaintiff. He would submit that this was important circumstance for consideration which has been completely ignored by the trial Court in the impugned order. He would submit that in that view of the matter, the sale deeds executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Applicants are non est and void ab initio as they have been executed in contravention of the temporary injunction granted by the Appellate Court while allowing the Appeal against the order of rejection of temporary injunction by the trial Court. He would therefore submit that Applicants are not a proper and necessary party to the Suit and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.