Bombay High Court
KAMRUDDIN IBRAHIM TELI DECD. THR LEGAL HEIRSversusM/S. YASHRAJ BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS THR VINOD D. PAWAR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The order directing the impleadment of Respondent No. 20 as Defendant No. 19 is upheld.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a July 6, 2023 order of the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, which allowed Respondent No. 20 to be impleaded as Defendant No. 19 in a suit, on the ground that she claimed to be the daughter of the late Kamruddin Ibrahim Teli. The trial court, after a prima facie examination of documents submitted by Respondent No. 20, found that she could indeed be the daughter and that her participation was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The High Court examined the submissions and found no error in the trial court’s reasoning, noting that the finding was only prima facie and could be contested during trial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upheld the impleadment order, and clarified that the plaintiff may still prove that Respondent No. 20 is not the daughter during the trial. All parties’ rights and contentions remain open.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in directing the impleadment of Respondent No. 20 as a defendant in the suit.
- Whether the prima facie finding of parentage and the need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings justify such impleadment.
Subjects
- impleadment
- multiplicity of proceedings
- prima facie
- civil procedure
- writ petition
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
Renuka 13-wp-11407-2023.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11407 OF 2023
Kamruddin Ibrahim Teli Decd. Thr Legal
Heirs ...Petitioners
V/s.
M/S. Yashraj Builders And Developers Thr
Vinod D. Pawar And Ors ...Respondent
______________
Mr. Pavan Patil with Mr. Shubham Saraf and Mr. Tanmay Deshmukh i/b Abhijit
Kulkarni for the Petitioners.
Ms. Vedika S. Bhoir i/b Mr. Vaibhav D. Kadam for the Respondent No. 20
______________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 04 March 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petition challenges order dated 6 July 2023 passed by 6 th
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane allowing the Application at Exhibit-
201 and directing impleadment of Respondent No. 20 as Defendant No. 19 to
the Suit.
2) I have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners and Ms. Bhoir, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.20
and considered the submissions canvassed by them.
3) Respondent No. 20 sought her impleadment as a Defendant to
the Suit claiming herself to be the daughter of 8rst wife of late Kamruddin
Ibrahim Teli. Based on documents produced by Defendant No. 20, the Trial
Court has conducted a prima facie scrutiny of her claim and has recorded prima
Page No. 1 of 2
04 March 2026
Renuka 13-wp-11407-2023.docx
facie 8nding that she could be the daughter of late Kamruddin Ibrahim Teli.
The 8nding however is not conclusive and Plaintiff can always prove during the
course of trial that Respondent No. 20 is indeed not the daughter of Late
Kamruddin Ibrahim Teli. Based on documents produced on behalf of
Respondent No. 20, the Trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that
participation of Respondent No. 20 in the suit is necessary for the purpose of
avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.
4) Accordingly, Respondent No. 20 is directed to be impleaded as
Defendant No. 19 in the suit. Considering the above position, no interference is
warranted.
5) Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. It is however clari8ed that
it would be open to the Plaintiff to prove before the trial Court that
Respondent No. 20 is not the daughter of late Kamruddin Ibrahim Teli.
6) All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
Digitally
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
signed by
MEGHA
MEGHA SHREEDHAR
SHREEDHAR PARAB
PARAB Date:
2026.03.04
18:19:50
+0530
Page No. 2 of 2
04 March 2026
Checking your session…