Bombay High Court

CHUNILAL MANSHI GALA AND ANRversusMANIBHADRA LIFESPACE PVT LTD AND ORS

Decided: 11 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petition stands disposed, with the petitioners directed to file an appropriate proceeding on affidavit before the trial court for deletion of their names.

Summary

The petitioners, Chunilal Manshi Gala and another, filed a writ petition seeking to be removed as defendants in an ongoing suit, contending that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on which their impleadment was based had expired and they had no claim over the subject property. The High Court examined whether the petition could be entertained given the alleged expiry of the MoU. The Court held that the petitioners may initiate a separate proceeding before the trial court, filing an affidavit to seek deletion of their names from the suit. It directed the City Civil Court to consider any such affidavit on its merits and pass an appropriate order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without further adjudication on the merits.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition can be entertained to delete parties from a suit on the ground that the underlying MoU has expired
Whether the petitioners must approach the trial court with an affidavit to seek deletion of their names from the suit

Subjects

Memorandum of Understanding
expiry
deletion of parties
civil procedure
writ petition
affidavit
trial court

Judgment

                                                                      35-WP8785-2026.DOC

                                                                                  Santosh

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 8785 OF 2026

                      Chunilal Manshi Gala And Anr                         ...Petitioners
                                       Versus
                      Manibhadra Lifespace Pvt Ltd And Ors                …Respondents

                      Mr. Bhanu Chopra, a/w Sakina Electrikwala and Esha Solanki,
                           i/b Avyaan Legal, for the Petitioner.
                      Ms. Aneesa Cheema, a/w Raju Jain, for Respondent No.1.
                      Mr. Darshan Mehta, i/b Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for Respondent
                           Nos.3 and 4.
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI                                             CORAM:    N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI                                             DATED:    11th AUGUST, 2026
Date: 2026.08.12
14:49:25 +0530


                      PC:-

                      1.     Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.


                      2.     When this Court expressed its disinclination to entertain

                      the Petition, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits

                      that, the Petitioners contention is that the MoU on the strength

                      of which the Petitioners have been impleaded as party

                      Defendants to the suit, has expired by ef@ux of time and the

                      Petitioners do not intend to lay any claim qua the subject

                      property.




                                                     1/2
                                                 35-WP8785-2026.DOC

3.   If that be the case, the Petitioners are permitted to Ble an

appropriate proceeding on an afBdavit before the trial Court

seeking the deletion of the Petitioners from the suit.


4.   In the event such proceeding is Bled and a statement on

afBdavit is made, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, is

requested to consider the same on its own merits and pass an

appropriate order, in accordance with law.


5.   The petition stands disposed.


                                          [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…