DIPAK PANDURANG MATALE AND ORS v. TUKARAM ANANDA MATALE AND ORS
IA/7122/2025 · 2026-09-09
body2009
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2009 DAILYLAW 1913 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2009 DAILYLAW 1913 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
k 1/2 6 wp 5281.09 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5281 OF 2009 Krishna Shaligram Niphadkar ....Petitioner V/S Tukaram Ananada Matale & Ors. ....Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7122 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5281 OF 2009 Dipak Pandurang Matale & Ors. ....Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Krishna Shaligram Niphadkar ....Petitioner V/S Tukaram Ananada Matale & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Nitin Mulye for the Petitioner. Mr. Prashant D. Patil for Applicant/Intervenor in IA. __________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 9 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.:
1. The Petition challenges the order dated 2 March 2009 passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nashik, rejecting Application at Exhibit-65 seeking amendment of the Plaint. Pendency of the Petition had resulted in stay of the suit for sometime. It appears that on account of judgment of the Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation1 the suit proceeded further. Issues are framed and Plaintiff has filed further Application for amendment to bring on record transferee pendente lite.
1 (2018) 16 SCC 299 katkam Page No.
1 of
2
2026:BHC-AS:37345
k 2/2 6 wp 5281.09 as.doc
2. The learned counsel appearing for Applicants in Interim Application submits that Applicants are now the purchasers of the suit property and are necessary parties in the suit. They do not have any objection if the Application at Exhibit-65 for amendment is allowed.
3. In view of consent given by the Applicants/Intervenors and the fact that the suit has proceeded with further amendments, in my view, even the Application at Exhibit-65 deserves to be allowed.
4. Accordingly, order dated 2 March 2009 passed on Application Exhibit-65 is set aside. Application at Exhibit-65 is allowed in terms of the prayers made therein. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
5. In view of the disposal of Writ Petition, nothing would survive in the Interim Application, and the same is also accordingly disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No.
2 of
2
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 10/09/2026 14:57:36