Bombay High Court

DAYANAND VITTAL KAMBLEversusSHIVAJI SHANKARRAO MANE AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The respondents who purchased the land during the pendency of the suit are necessary and proper parties, and the trial court’s order allowing their impleadment stands.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging orders in Regular Civil Suit No. 299 of 2010 concerning partition and possession of land. An application (Exhibit‑169) was filed belatedly on 26‑02‑2024 to implead three respondents who had purchased portions of the land through sale deeds dated 1990, 2011 and 2013, the latter two executed during the pendency of the suit. The trial court allowed the impleadment, holding the respondents to be necessary and proper parties, and this order was later affirmed, with a review petition rejected for lack of grounds. The High Court examined whether purchasers who acquire property during the pendency of a suit fall within the doctrine of lis pendens and whether the trial court’s discretion could be reviewed. It concluded that the respondents’ rights affect the outcome of the suit and therefore they must be joined, and that the review petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the trial court was directed to decide the suit expeditiously, avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

Issues considered

Whether parties who purchased property during the pendency of a suit are necessary and proper parties under the doctrine of lis pendens.
Whether a belated application for impleadment of such purchasers can be allowed.
Whether a review petition against the trial court’s order can be entertained in the absence of specific grounds.

Subjects

partition
lis pendens
impleadment
civil suit
review jurisdiction
expeditious disposal
possession

Judgment

                                                     66-WP-4928-2026 (C).doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4928 OF 2026

Dayanand Vittal Kamble                                             ...Petitioner
      Versus
Shivaji Shankarrao Mane And Ors                                ...Respondents

                               …..
Adv. Aditya S. Raktade a/w Adv. Sanket V. Patil and Adv. Ajit Jagtap,
Advocate for Petitioner.
                               …..


                                     CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                     DATE     : 06th OCTOBER, 2026.

P.C. :

           Heard.

2.         Being aggrieved by order dated 26.09.2025 passed below Exhibit-

169 and order dated 07.07.2026 passed below Exhibit - 183 in Regular

Civil Suit No. 299 of 2010, petitioner has approached this Court.

3.         Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed the submissions

that the application Exhibit - 169 has been preferred belatedly on

26.02.2024. The sale deeds were executed in the years 1990, 2011 and

2013. The suit is old one and intervention of the third parties would

cause prejudice to the petitioner, as it is for partition. Except the sale

deed of 1990, rest of the sale deeds are executed during pendency of



     ZIP                                                               1 of 3
                                                     66-WP-4928-2026 (C).doc




the suit, hit by principles of lis pendens. The third parties are not

necessary or proper parties.

4.         The petitioner has filed RCS No. 299 of 2010 for partition and

possession. The issues are settled and the suit is at the stage of

recording of evidence. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the purchasers

from the father of the petitioner by sale deeds executed at different

points of time. On the strength of the sale deeds, they submitted

application Exhibit - 169 on 26.02.2024 seeking impleadment. By

impugned order, application is allowed. The attempt to recall the order

has failed due to the order dated 07.07.2026 passed below Exhibit -

183.

5.         The respondent No. 1 has purchased part of the subject matter

vide sale deed dated 02.05.1990 and 09.07.2013. The respondent No. 2

purchased part of the suit land on 09.09.2011. The respondent No. 3

purchased part of the suit land vide sale deed dated 15.10.2011 and

09.07.2013. Except the sale deed dated 02.05.1990, the rest of the sale

deeds have been executed during pendency of the suit. Those sale deeds

are subject to outcome of the suit.

6.         The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the purchasers from the father of

the petitioner and they are in possession of the purchased pieces of

land. Due to the alienation in their favour, right is created to some

extent. If the petitioner succeeds in the suit, then execution for seeking



     ZIP                                                               2 of 3
                                                        66-WP-4928-2026 (C).doc




possession will face some problem. I find that the findings recorded by

the Trial Court that they are necessary and proper parties cannot be

faulted with.

7.         I have also gone through order passed below Exhibit - 183. The

said application is rightly rejected, because no grounds are made out to

invoke review jurisdiction.

8.         It is clarified that the Trial Court shall take precaution to decide

the suit expeditiously. It should be kept in mind that application Exhibit-

169 has been preferred belatedly on 26.02.2024.

9.         The writ petition is dismissed with a request to the Trial Court to

decide the suit expeditiously. Unnecessary adjournments, especially at

the instance of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, shall be avoided.



                                                 [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




     ZIP                                                                  3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…