Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

VIJAY SUBHASH PATIL AND ANR.versusMAYA SANJAY PATIL AND ORS.

Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The appellate court correctly rejected the petitioners' application for impleadment, and the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, who purchased the disputed property on 16‑02‑2019, filed a writ petition challenging the District Judge's order rejecting their application for impleadment in an appeal concerning the same property. They argued that as bonafide purchasers their proprietary rights were affected and that the appellate court should have allowed them to be joined as parties. The court examined the timeline, noting that the original suit was filed in 2014, the decree was passed on 25‑03‑2019, and the petitioners bought the property just before the decree became final. It held that the petitioners are bound by the outcome of the pending appeal and that their interests are already represented by the vendor who is a party to the appeal. Consequently, the court found no error in the appellate court’s order and dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit.

Issues considered

  • Whether a third‑party purchaser can be impleaded in an appellate proceeding when the original suit has been decreed and the appeal is pending
  • Whether the appellate court erred in rejecting the petitioners' application for impleadment

Subjects

  • impleadment
  • third party purchaser
  • civil appeal
  • property rights
  • jurisdiction
  • writ petition

Judgment

                                          1
                                                               65-WP-429-2026 (C).DOC


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 429 OF 2026

                            Vijay Subhash Patil And Anr.
                                      VERSUS
                            Maya Sanjay Patil And Ors.

        Mr. Aditya S Raktade, Advocate for Petitioners


                               CORAM      :     SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                               DATE       :     18th MARCH 2026.
        P.C.

        1.       Heard.

        2.       The petitioners have raised an exception to the order dated

        19/06/2025 rendered by District Judge-1, Islampur, below Exhibit 24

        in Regular Civil Appeal No. 6/2020 seeking impleadment as a party in

        a pending proceeding between the respondents herein, which came to

        be rejected.


        3.       Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

        petitioners are the third party having purchased the suit property

        pursuant to sale deed dated 16/02/2019 in relation to which Regular

        Civil Suit No. 20/2014 was decreed vide Judgment and Order dated

        25/03/2019 by Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shirala. Consequently,

        the appeal, was preferred and during its pendency, the petitioners


Iresh
                                           2
                                                                65-WP-429-2026 (C).DOC


        herein sought impleadment, being bonafide purchasers of the

        disputed property contending that it affects their proprietary rights.

        However, the Appellate Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction

        judiciously and has rejected their application for the same while

        rendering the order under challenge.

        4.        Upon considering the submissions of learned counsel for the

        petitioners and perusal of the record indicates that the decree in a

        suit against which the aforesaid appeal is preferred was instituted in

        the year 2014 challenging the sale deed executed in the year 2005.

        The record further indicates that the present petitioners being third

        party, conscious of pending litigations, purchased the disputed suit

        property on 16/02/2019 while the suit was decreed on 25/03/2019.

        Thus, the said property was purchased at the fag end of the litigation,

        as such, the present petitioners are bound by the outcome of the

        proceedings. All these aspects are rightly considered and appreciated

        by the Appellate Court.

        5.        In any event, the petitioners’ interest is adequately

        represented by the vendor, who has already presented an Appeal.

        Allowing such impleadment at the appellate stage would complicate

        and delay the proceedings those are otherwise between the original

        litigating parties.



Iresh
                                                       3
                                                                           65-WP-429-2026 (C).DOC


        6.       In view of the aforestated peculiar circumstances, no error is

        noted in the order under challenge. The Petition sans merits.

        Accordingly, stands dismissed.




                                                               (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)




                         IRESH     Digitally signed by IRESH
                                   MASHAL

                         MASHAL    Date: 2026.04.08 11:21:56
                                   +0530




Iresh


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.