VISHWANTH BHAUSAHEB MOTE AND ANOTHERversusNAVNATH ALIAS SACHET WAMAN CHAVAN DIED THROUGH LRS LATABAI WAMAN CHAVAN AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:39771



                                                     1
                                                                       19-wp-7094-2023

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 7094 OF 2023

                     1.     Vishwanath Bhausaheb Mote
                            Age: 60 years, Occ: Agril,
                            R/o. Pargaon Sudrik, Tq. Shrigonda,
                            Dist. Ahmednagar.

                     2.     Varsha Vishwanath Mote
                            Age: 55 years, Occ: Household,
                            R/o Pargaon Sudrik, Tq. Shrigonda,
                            Dist. Ahmednagar.
                                                                     …..PETITIONERS
                                                                    (Orig. Defendants)
                                  VERSUS

                     1.     Navnath @ Sachet Waman Chavan
                            (Died through L.Rs.)

                     1A.    Latabai Waman Chavan
                            Age: 55 years, Occ: Agril,

                     1B.    Pratibha Navnath Chavan
                            Age: 29 years, Occ: Agril,

                     1C.    Vishwatej Navnath Chavan
                            Age: 7 years, Occ: Education,
                            (Minor u/g of his real mother i.e.1B)

                            R.Nos.1A and 1B are resident of
                            S.R.P. Group, Daund, Tq. Daund,
                            Dist. Pune.
                                                                …..RESPONDENTS
                                                                  (Orig. Plaintiffs)
                     ______________________________________________________
                     Ms. M. V. Narwade, Advocate for the Petitioners
                     Mr. R. A. Tambe, Advocate for Respondent nos.1(a) and 1(b)
                     ______________________________________________________
                                2
                                                   19-wp-7094-2023

                        CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                        DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2026

JUDGMENT :-

.       Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.      SUBJECT MATTER:

2.1.    Respondent      no.1/Navnath     s/o    Waman        Chavan

instituted Regular Civil Suit No.111 of 2008 against the

present petitioners seeking perpetual injunction restraining

them from obstructing peaceful possession of the plaintiff over

the suit property. The description of the suit property is

described in Exhibit-1 of the suit.

2.2.    During    the     proceeding      of    the   suit,     the

defendants/present petitioners appeared and contested the

suit by filing their written statement. During the course of

proceedings, the plaintiff died, whereupon the present

respondents      moved    an   at     Exhibit-66   seeking     their

impleadment as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.

The said application came to be allowed by the impugned

order dated 24.02.2023 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge

Senior Division, Shrigonda in Regular Civil Suit No.111 of

2008.
                                 3
                                                   19-wp-7094-2023

2.3.   Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before

this Court.

2.4.   Ms. M. V. Narwade, learned Advocate for the petitioners

would raise more than one issue for consideration in the Writ

Petition. Firstly, she would argue that considering the nature

of the prayer in the suit, the respondents/legal representatives

of deceased plaintiff are incompetent to prosecute the cause of

action further. Secondly, she submits that the suit itself is not

maintainable for want of necessary prayers in the suit, and

hence there was no occasion for allowing the legal

representatives of the deceased plaintiff to participate in the

suit proceedings.

3.     SUBMISSIONS:

3.1.   Ms. M. V. Narwade, learned Advocate for the petitioners

invites my attention to the prayer clause in Exhibit-1 i.e. the

plaint and would submit that the plaintiff had sought an

injunction against the petitioners making out a cause of action

that he was obstructed to cultivate the land. She would

further submit that from the recitals of the prayer clause itself,

it appears that cause died with the plaintiff and hence, the

first issue of debate is sought to be justified.
                                 4
                                                  19-wp-7094-2023

3.2.   So long as the second objection is concerned, Ms.

Narwade will rely on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi

Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and others , reported in (2008) 4 SCC

595. She would also rely upon two judgments namely, S.

Santhana Lakshmi Vs. D. Rajammal, 2025 INSC 1197 and

Sanjay Paliwal and Anr Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

Through Its Executive Director, 2026 INSC 61 which reiterate

the principles governing the nature and the scope of reliefs to

be sought in a Civil Suit.

3.3.   She would further submit that considering the necessity

to draft the suit for necessary and adequate prayers, the suit

itself is not maintainable which is meant only for perpetual

injunction.   To   elaborate   the   second    issue   on   which

Ms. Narwade has much thrust, she would submit that

considering the dispute raised by the defendants/present

petitioners, the title of the plaintiff was seriously doubted. She

would submit that the defence not only put dark clouds on the

title of the plaintiffs but also falsify plaintiffs’ case that they

are in the possession of the suit property. Therefore, she
                                5
                                                  19-wp-7094-2023

submits that unless there were prayers seeking declaration as

to the title and also a prayer for possession, the suit is not at

all maintainable in view of the law cited supra. With this,

Ms. Narwade concludes her arguments and prays to allow the

petition.

3.4.   In answer, Mr. R. A. Tambe, learned Advocate for the

respondents/legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff

would also rely on the recitals of the plaint. He would submit

that the first point of objection raised by Ms. Narwade cannot

be a fatal to the participation of the legal representatives of

the plaintiff in the suit. He would submit that their father has

claimed ownership in the subject matter/suit property by

virtue of registered sale deed. He would submit that the

contents of the plaint if taken as it is, it would show that their

deceased father has given reference to his ownership and then

has shown his grievance against the interference caused by the

present petitioners.

3.5.   He would submit that in view of Section 2 of the Civil

Procedure Code, as also Order XXII, Rule 1 thereof, the cause

of action devolves upon the legal representatives of the

deceased plaintiff, and therefore they were justified in filing
                                6
                                                 19-wp-7094-2023

application below Exhibit-66. He further submits that the Trial

Court was also justified in allowing the legal representatives

to participate in the suit proceedings.


3.6.   So long as the another objection raised by Ms. Narwade

is concerned, Mr. Tambe submits that the plaintiff, and now

the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff would have

to bear the consequences if they fail to make out a case before

the Court in support of the relief sought in the plaint. As such,

he would submit that the plaint does not suffer from any

infirmity nor it is acceptable that the suit could be dismissed

or was not maintainable for the reasons which are narrated by

the petitioners in this case. He would further submit that the

issue of maintainability of the suit is not the subject matter

before this Court and same may not be permitted to be

agitated by the petitioners in the present petition.

4.     CONCLUSION

4.1.   Heard both the learned Advocates at length. Perused

the papers of the Writ Petition. Section 2(11) of the Civil

Procedure Code and Order XXII, Rule 1 reads thus:
                                7
                                                 19-wp-7094-2023

       2(11) “legal representative” means a person who
       in law represents the estate of a deceased
       person, and includes any person who
       intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and
       where a party sues or is sued in a representative
       character the person on whom the estate
       devolves on the death of the party so suing or
       sued;

                         ORDER XXII
           Death, Marriage and Insolvency or Parties
       1. No abatement by party's death if right to sue
       survives.—The death of a plaintiff or defendant
       shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to
       sue survives.

4.2.   Having regard to the averments in the plaint, it appears

that the plaintiff has traced his title referring to a registered

sale deed executed in his favour. Thus at the threshold, the

presumption is in favour of the plaintiff. The cause of action

pleaded for instituting the suit is the obstruction caused by the

defendants in cultivating the suit property. It is an undisputed

fact that the present respondents are legal representatives of

the deceased plaintiff.

4.3.   Considering the averments in the written statements, it

cannot be accepted that the cause of action for the suit came

to an end with the demise of the plaintiff as argued by Ms.

Narwade. Objection to defendants was their interference with
                               8
                                               19-wp-7094-2023

the suit property. The prayer in the suit can not be segregated

from the suit land. I do not comprehend with Ms. Narwade’s

submission that the cause of action died with the deceased

plaintiff. Hence, in view of the provisions referred to

hereinabove, I am convinced with the findings recorded by the

Trial Court to the effect that the legal representatives of

deceased plaintiff can further prosecute the present suit

proceedings. Thus, the first debate issue stands answered.

4.4.   So long as the another objection on maintainability of

the suit is concerned, I am convinced with the arguments

advanced by Mr. Tambe that the said is not the subject matter

before this Court. The only order under challenge before this

Court is the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the legal

representatives of the deceased plaintiff to further prosecute

the suit. Considering the nature of objection and the defence

or response that the legal representatives of the deceased

plaintiff may advance at an appropriate stage of the suit

before the Trial Court, it would not be appropriate to

comment on this objection in the present petition.
                                  9
                                                   19-wp-7094-2023

4.5.    In view of this, I find no infirmity in the view taken by

the learned Judge of the Trial Court. The order impugned in

this Writ Petition is absolutely justified. Hence, Writ Petition

stands dismissed.

5.      Rule stands discharged.



                                      ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2026