Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 20]

Bombay High Court

Mr. Satish Gajanan Mulik vs Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati And Ors on 7 January, 2019

Author: K.K. Tated

Bench: K.K. Tated

                                                               35-wp-14762-2018 & connected matters.doc



                         FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       WRIT PETITION NO.14762 OF 2018
                                   WITH
                       WRIT PETITION NO.14758 OF 2018
                                   WITH
                       WRIT PETITION NO.14759 OF 2018
                                   WITH
                       WRIT PETITION NO.14760 OF 2018
                                   WITH
                       WRIT PETITION NO.14761 OF 2018


   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office
memorandum of Coram,
appearance, Court's                                          Court's or
orders or directions &                                       Judge's orders.
Registrar's orders.
                    Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar, Senior Counsel I/b Niranjan
                    Mogre for petitioners.


                                                  CORAM : K.K. TATED, J.

DATE : 7 JANUARY 2019.

P.C. :-

. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Gorwadkar submits that by these petitions they are challenging the order passed by the trial Court allowing plaintiff's application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code for adding Mr. Balasaheb Arjun Magar as a defendant in suit. He submitted that third party is not S.C.Magar Page 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:58:19 ::: 35-wp-14762-2018 & connected matters.doc necessary party in the present case. Considering the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the impugned order, I satisfied that the petitioner has made out case for following order :

a) Registry is directed to issue notice before admission to the respondents returnable on 08.02.2019.
b) In addition to the usual mode of service petitioner is permitted to serve the respondents by private notice along with entire proceedings either by RPAD and or by hand delivery and file affidavit of service to that effect on or before 01.02.2019.
c) Liberty granted to the petitioner to move before returnable date, in case of urgency, after giving 72 hours clear notice to the respondents along with entire proceedings.

(K.K. TATED, J.) S.C.Magar Page 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:58:19 :::