Neeta Sawant 17-WP-3046-2022.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3046 OF 2022 Stanwood Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. …..PETITIONER : VERSUS : Shankar Jodharam Sangtani & Ors. ….RESPONDENTS Mr. Sachin Gite, for the Petitioner. Mr. Lakshyaved R. Odhekar with Mr. Syed Nabeel Ali and Mr. Omkar Mhasde, for Respondent Nos.1A to 1D. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 20 FEBRUARY, 2026. P.C. : 1) The petition challenges order dated 3 March 2020 passed by the District Judge-2, Nashik rejecting the application of the Petitioner/Defendant No.6 at Exhibit-66 seeking deletion of his name and also deletion of Plot No.E-57 from the suit. 2) I have heard Mr.Gite, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.Odhekar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1A to 1A/Original Plainti@s. 3) The Suit has been instituted by the Plainti@s for recovery of money. It is simply a Commercial Suit based on sale transaction of goods. The property at para-4 of the plaint is included for the purpose of securing an order of attachment before judgment. Otherwise, the issue involved in the Suit does not really relate to the said property. Plainti@ impleaded the Petitioner-Defendant No.6 in the Suit only because the signboard of Defendant No.6 was noticed in respect of Plot No.E-57. It appears that Plot No.E-57 was mortgaged by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 with Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Limited who has sold the same to the Petitioner. Petitioner _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 1 OF 2 20 FEBRUARY 2026 Neeta Sawant 17-WP-3046-2022.docx is thus a bonaAde purchaser of the mortgaged property from the Bank. Petitioner has no concern with the disputes pending between the Plainti@ and Defendant Nos.1 to 4. The Bank which sold the plot to the Petitioner is not impleaded as party to the Suit. 4) Mr.Odhekar, relies on interim order of status-quo dated 6 April 2018 and contends that the plot has been sold in breach of the interim injunction and deletion of Respondent No.6 at this stage would result in his conduct of purchase of the plot in breach of injunction order undecided. 5) Mr.Gite, invites the attention of the Court to the rojnama which indicates that the ad-interim order of status-quo was apparently not extended after 14 August 2018. Mr.Gite submits that the Sale CertiAcate has been executed and registered on 18 January 2019. 6) In my view, the issue involved in the Suit has nothing to do with the Petitioner or the property purchased by him. It is simply a suit for recovery of money for which plot purchased by the Petitioner need not be embroiled considering the position that the Petitioner is an auction purchasers and the Bank which sold the plot to the Petitioner is not even a party to the Suit. It is also seen that the Plainti@ has failed to challenge the Sale CertiAcate issued in favour of the Petitioner. Considering the above position, in my view, presence of Petitioner/Defendant No.6 in the Suit is not necessary. The Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application Aled by the Petitioner. 7) The petition accordingly succeeds. Order dated 3 March 2020 passed by the Learned District Judge is set aside. Petitioner-Defendant No.6, as well as property bearing Plot No.E/57 shall stand deleted from the Suit. The Court shall permit the Plainti@ to carry out necessary amendment in the plaint. With the above directions, the petition is allowed and disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 2 OF 2 20 FEBRUARY 2026 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.02.21 16:34:36 +0530