Bombay High Court
M/S. PAWAN DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNERversusM/S. D.J. BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNER AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petitioner must be impleaded in the suit as its presence is necessary to protect its rights under the Development Agreement.
Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Pawan Developers, sought to be impleaded in a civil suit (No. 538 of 2007) concerning the validity of a 1994 Development Agreement and the termination thereof, invoking Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The original plaintiff challenged a later 2007 Development Agreement executed in favour of Defendant No.3 and sought an injunction against obstruction of construction. During the suit, Defendant No.3 entered into a new Development Agreement with the petitioner on 24 April 2009, prompting the petitioner to apply for impleadment as a transferee pendente lite. The trial court rejected the application, leading to the present writ petition. The High Court held that the petitioner’s presence was essential to protect its interests and to avoid speculative settlement outcomes, and therefore set aside the trial court’s order, granting the petitioner's application and allowing it to file a written statement within four weeks. The writ petition was allowed and disposed, with all substantive merits left open for future determination.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner should be impleaded in the suit under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for impleadment.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order I Rule 10
Subjects
- impleadment
- development agreement
- civil suit
- injunction
- termination notice
- CPC
- Order I Rule 10
- high court
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:39987
Megha 27_wp_2694_2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2694 OF 2019
M/s. Pawan Developers ...Petitioner
V/s.
M/s. D.J. Builders & Developers and
Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Hrushi Narvekar, Mr. Ayush Khandelwal, Ms. Namrata Patkar i/b. M/s.
TRD Associates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Omkar Nagwekar for Respondent No.1.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) Petition challenges order dated 20 October 2018 passed by the
Joint Civil Judge, Junior Divison, Kalyan rejecting Application at Exhibit-
65 taken out by the Petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 for its impleadment as party to the Suit.
2) I have hard Mr. Narvekar, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. Nagwekar, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.1 and have considered the submissions canvassed by
them.
Page No.1 of 3
30 September 2026
Megha 27_wp_2694_2019
3) It appears that the Plaintiff claims rights in respect of the suit
property on the strength of Developement Agreement dated 25 March
1994. By notice dated 16 August 2007, the land owner (Defendant No.1)
terminated the Developement Agreement dated 25 March 1994 executed
in favour of the Plaintiff. Defendant No.1 immediately executed further
Developement Agreement dated 19 November 2007 in favour of
Defendant No.3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit
No.538 of 2007 seeking a declaration that the Developement Agreement
dated 25 March 1994 executed in its favour is valid and binding,
challenging termination notice dated 16 August 2007 and seeking a
declaration for setting aside Development Agreement dated 19
November 2007 executed in favour of Defendant No.3. The Plaintiff has
also sought injunction against the Defendants from obstructing activity
of construction on the suit property. During pendency of the Suit,
Defendant No.3 executed further Developement Agreement with the
Petitioner on 24 April 2009. In his capacity as transferee pendente lite,
the Petitioner applied to the Court for its impleadment under Order I
Rule 10 of the Code.
4) In my view, it is necessary to have presence of the Petitioner in
the Suit since the Plaintiff has challenged Developement Agreement
dated 19 November 2007 executed in favour of Defendant No.3. This
Court did notice submission made on behalf of the Plaintiff that
Defendant No.3 does not support the Petitioner. This makes position of
the Petitioner vulnerable and gives rise to a speculation that Defendant
No.3 may settle the Suit with the Plaintiff. If Defendant No.3 does not
Page No.2 of 3
30 September 2026
Megha 27_wp_2694_2019
defend prayer clause (e) in the Plaint and if the same is granted, the
same would have direct impact on validity of the Petitioner’s
Developement Agreement dated 25 April 2009. Considering these
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, entry of the Petitioner in
the Suit becomes necessary.
5) In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 20
October 2018 is set aside. The Petitioner’s Application at Exhibit-65 is
made absolute in terms of prayers made therein. The Petitioner would be
at liberty to file written statemnet in the Suit within a period of four
weeks.
6) Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms. All
contentions of the parties on merits are experessly kept open.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 30 September 2026
Date: 01/10/2026 15:10:36
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.