SHRIKRISHNA RAMCHANDRA DHARAP AND ORS vs SWAROOP SURENDRANATH CHOPRA DECD THR LHRS AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

41-WP-8689-2025 copy -F-.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8689 OF 2025 Shrikrishna Ramchandra Dharap and Ors. … Petitioners Vs. Swaroop Surendranath Chopra Decd. thru LRs. and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate i/b. Rohit D. Joshi, for Petitioners. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Kaustubh Patil, for Respondent No. 1. Mr. J.M. Joshi, for Respondent No. 8/2. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. Date : July 2, 2025 Oral Judgement: Context and Background: 1. This is a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning an order dated April 3, 2025 passed by the District Judge-3, Panvel (“Impugned Order”), rejecting an application filed by the Petitioners under Order VI, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC”). This Petition has come up before me due to recusal by the Regular Bench. With Page 1 of 12 July 2, 2025 Shraddha 41-WP-8689-2025 copy -F-.docx the consent of the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2. The application that stands rejected in the Impugned Order was taken out in appellate proceedings (“Appeal”), in which the Petitioners had made a prayer for striking out pleadings in the original plaint of the Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 1985 (“Suit 28”), on the ground of abuse of the process of the Court by Respondent No. 1 in the course of Suit 28. 3. The basis for this prayer was the allegation that when the plaint in Suit 28 was filed, there purportedly had been no prayer seeking possession of the suit property, despite the plaint containing a prayer for specific performance. Contentions of the Parties: 4. According to Mr. Vineet Naik, Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners, they were acquirers of the suit property pursu