Bombay High Court

STANWOOD ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI MOHIT KEWAL NARANGversusSHANKAR JODHARAM SANGTANI AND ORS

Decided: 20 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SANDEEP V MARNE

Holding

The petition is allowed; the petitioner‑defendant and Plot No.E‑57 are deleted from the suit.

Summary

The petitioner, Stanwood Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., sought deletion of its name and Plot No.E-57 from a commercial suit filed for recovery of money. The suit involved a sale transaction of goods, and the property was only attached as security, unrelated to the monetary dispute. The petitioner, a bona‑fide purchaser of the mortgaged plot from Thane Janata Sahakari Bank, argued that the interim status‑quo order had lapsed and that the plaintiff had not challenged the sale certificate. The respondent contended that the sale breached the interim injunction and that deletion would condone a violation. The High Court held that the suit’s subject matter bore no connection to the petitioner or the plot, the plaintiff had failed to contest the sale, and the trial court erred in refusing the deletion. Consequently, the order rejecting the petition was set aside, and the petitioner and the plot were ordered deleted from the suit, with the plaintiff directed to amend the plaint accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner‑defendant can be deleted from the suit and the attached property removed given the suit concerns only a monetary claim.
Whether the sale of Plot No.E‑57 violated the interim status‑quo injunction dated 6 April 2018.
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petition for deletion of the petitioner and the property.

Subjects

civil procedure
amendment of plaint
deletion of party
interim injunction
status‑quo order
property attachment
commercial suit
auction purchaser

Judgment

Neeta Sawant 17-WP-3046-2022.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3046 OF 2022

Stanwood Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. …..PETITIONER

: VERSUS :

Shankar Jodharam Sangtani & Ors. ….RESPONDENTS

Mr. Sachin Gite, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Lakshyaved R. Odhekar with Mr. Syed Nabeel Ali and Mr. Omkar
Mhasde, for Respondent Nos.1A to 1D.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 20 FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :

1) The petition challenges order dated 3 March 2020 passed by the

District Judge-2, Nashik rejecting the application of the

Petitioner/Defendant No.6 at Exhibit-66 seeking deletion of his name and

also deletion of Plot No.E-57 from the suit.

2) I have heard Mr.Gite, the learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner and Mr.Odhekar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent

Nos.1A to 1A/Original Plainti@s.

3) The Suit has been instituted by the Plainti@s for recovery of money.

It is simply a Commercial Suit based on sale transaction of goods. The

property at para-4 of the plaint is included for the purpose of securing an

order of attachment before judgment. Otherwise, the issue involved in the

Suit does not really relate to the said property. Plainti@ impleaded the

Petitioner-Defendant No.6 in the Suit only because the signboard of

Defendant No.6 was noticed in respect of Plot No.E-57. It appears that

Plot No.E-57 was mortgaged by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 with Thane Janata

Sahakari Bank Limited who has sold the same to the Petitioner. Petitioner
_____________________________________________________________________________

PAGE NO. 1 OF 2

20 FEBRUARY 2026
Neeta Sawant 17-WP-3046-2022.docx

is thus a bonaAde purchaser of the mortgaged property from the Bank.

Petitioner has no concern with the disputes pending between the Plainti@

and Defendant Nos.1 to 4. The Bank which sold the plot to the Petitioner is

not impleaded as party to the Suit.

4) Mr.Odhekar, relies on interim order of status-quo dated 6

April 2018 and contends that the plot has been sold in breach of the interim

injunction and deletion of Respondent No.6 at this stage would result in his

conduct of purchase of the plot in breach of injunction order undecided.

5) Mr.Gite, invites the attention of the Court to the rojnama

which indicates that the ad-interim order of status-quo was apparently not

extended after 14 August 2018. Mr.Gite submits that the Sale CertiAcate

has been executed and registered on 18 January 2019.

6) In my view, the issue involved in the Suit has nothing to do with

the Petitioner or the property purchased by him. It is simply a suit for

recovery of money for which plot purchased by the Petitioner need not be

embroiled considering the position that the Petitioner is an auction

purchasers and the Bank which sold the plot to the Petitioner is not even a

party to the Suit. It is also seen that the Plainti@ has failed to challenge the

Sale CertiAcate issued in favour of the Petitioner. Considering the above

position, in my view, presence of Petitioner/Defendant No.6 in the Suit is

not necessary. The Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application Aled

by the Petitioner.

7) The petition accordingly succeeds. Order dated 3 March 2020

passed by the Learned District Judge is set aside. Petitioner-Defendant

No.6, as well as property bearing Plot No.E/57 shall stand deleted from the

Suit. The Court shall permit the Plainti@ to carry out necessary

Digitally amendment in the plaint. With the above directions, the petition is allowed
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH and disposed of.
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.02.21
16:34:36
+0530
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

_____________________________________________________________________________

PAGE NO. 2 OF 2

20 FEBRUARY 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…