Bayer (India) Limited and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- order 1, rule 10 & section 96: [arijit pasayat , lokeshwar singh panta & p. sathasivam, jj] first appeal - suit for partition and separate possession - high court allowing impleading of purchasers pendente lite as party respondents in appeal? - when the purchasers approached the high court for their impleadment and for directions, final decree proceeding was pending before the trial court -- in fact, it was pointed out that pursuant to the application filed for passing final decree, a commissioner was appointed for division of the suit properties by metes and bounds -- respondent nos. 8 and 9 purchased item no.9 from the first respondent herein pendente lite held, courts are not supposed to encourage pendente lite transactions and regularise their conduct by showing equity in their favour. in such circumstances, it is but proper to relegate all the issues in the final decree proceedings and if the, the same is pending before the trial court-. order of high court was confirmed regarding impleading pendente lite purchases but in respect of other aspects, namely, direction for payment of compensation to the plaintiff and others and working out equity are set aside. however, all the parties are permitted to put-forth their claim by way of separate application before the trial court in the final decree proceedings and it is for the trial court to consider the claim/objection of the parties including equity and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. m.h. kania, j.1. this special leave petition is directed against the judgment of a division bench of the bombay high court in writ petition no. 4497 of 1990. the high court allowed the said writ petition and struck down a communication from the bombay municipal corporation, respondent no. 2 herein, informing the petitioners in the said writ petition who are arrayed as respondents nos. 3 to 18 before us, that their application for permission to develop the property, namely, the land in question situated at village balkum near thane, was rejected in view of the representations submitted to the government by the owners of chemical factories situated in the said village, who are the appellants/petitioners herein that no building construction permission should be granted within a certain distance from the said factories. the petitioners in the special leave petition are some of the said chemical factories. they were not joined in the writ petition as respondents and have prayed for leave to file the special leave petition on the ground that the judgment adversely effects them and they are aggrieved by the same.2. permission is granted. leave is granted. counsel heard.3. we find that appellants can be said to be parties aggrieved by the impugned judgment, even if they are not regarded as necessary parties in the writ petition. in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is no need to set aside the impugned judgment of the bombay high court at the instance of the appellants. the appellants are, however, given liberty to file a review petition before the bombay high court for reviewing the impugned judgment, within a period of four weeks from today. in our opinion, it is proper that the entire controversy to which the judgment relates should be determined in the light of the submissions which may be made by the appellants.4. in these circumstances, we direct that the review petition, if filed, shall be entertained by the bombay high court and the appellants will be given a hearing as if the matter were heard afresh as far as they are concerned. it is clarified that the hearing of the review application will not be confined to the normal grounds on which a review can be sought but the entire controversy will be regarded as open as between the appellants herein and the respondents.5. the interim order made by this court on january 8. 1991 will continue to remain in operation till the review petition is decided by the high court. however, it will be open for the high court to vary or vacate the interim order on appropriate applications made to it by any of the parties or by any of the interveners here. if the review petition is not filed within the said period of four weeks, the appeal shall stand dismissed and all interim orders passed by us shall be deemed to be vacated.6. in our opinion, the review petition deserves to be disposed of with expedition and we would, therefore, request the high court to dispose of the review petition, if filed as aforestated, within four months from today and in any event, by the 30th september, 1991.7. the matter shall now be placed before learned chief justice of the bombay high court for passing appropriate directions.8. the appeal is disposed of as aforestated with no order as to costs.