GHANSHYAMBHAI DAYALJIBHAI MANEK vs NEHABEN RAJNIKANT GANDESHA
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/15731/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240768912026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15731 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
GHANSHYAMBHAI DAYALJIBHAI MANEK
Versus
NEHABEN RAJNIKANT GANDESHA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HJ KARATHIYA(7012) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 23/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. H.J.Karathiya, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, seeking the following reliefs:-
“ (A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting
th
impugned order dated 28.09.2026 passed by the learned 18
Additional Senior Civil Judge & A.C.J.M. Rajkot below Exh.28 in
Special Civil Suit No.115 of 2025 ( ANNEXURE-J ) and further be
pleased to allow the application submitted by the petitioner herein
below Exh.28 ( ANNEXURE-I)
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026
C/SCA/15731/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240768912026)
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present
petition, YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to stay further
proceedings of the Special Civil Suit No.115 of 2025 pending
th
before the learned 18 Additional Senior Civil Judge & A.C.J.M.
Rajkot ( ANNEXURE-A);
( C) Pass any such other and/or further order that may be
thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case;”
3. Mr. Karathiya, learned advocate for the petitioner, would
submit that petitioner happens to be original plaintiff of Special Civil
Suit No.115 of 2025 in question and desires to join respondent No.2
herein - Capri Global Capital Limited as party defendant in the suit
and since that party who sought to be joined has no objection of its
joining, the Trial Court could not have rejected the impugned
application filed by the petitioner below Exhibit-28 in the suit.
3.1 It is submitted that as per settled position of law, plaintiff
being dominus litis , is entitled to join the party from whom he seeks
any relief. It is further submitted that there is one prayer made in the
suit against the said Capri Global Capital Limited, thereby, the Trial
Court ought to have allowed the application.
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026
C/SCA/15731/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240768912026)
3.2 It is lastly submitted that even though in a suit for specific
performance, respondent No.2 may not be a necessary party, but
surely it would be a proper party whose presence is required for
effective adjudication of the suit for passing the decree in favour of
the petitioner.
4. Having heard learned advocate for petitioner and upon perusal
of impugned order, it appears that petitioner's impugned application
filed below Exhibit-28 in the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC
came to be rejected by the Trial Court. It is undisputed fact that suit
in question is filed seeking specific performance of an agreement to
sell executed by respondent No.1 herein in favour of petitioner in
relation to suit property. It is not disputed that respondent No.2 was
not party to such agreement.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that entire sale consideration has
been paid to the respondent No.1 either by making payment to
respondent No.2 - mortgagee and/or paid to respondent No.1 and
thereby, he is entitled to seek performance of the agreement to sell
executed by respondent No.1. It appears that no due certificate also
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026
C/SCA/15731/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240768912026)
issued by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1. The
respondent No. 2 appears to have given its no objection as regards its
joining in the suit, but such joining was objected by the respondent
No.1 – the defendant by filing his objection below Exhibit-38.
6. The Trial Court has considered the aspect of necessary and
proper party while passing impugned order and after taking note of
the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mumbai
International Airport Private Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre
and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2010 (7) SCC 417, rejected the
impugned application.
7. It cannot be said that in a case like the present one where the
suit instituted by petitioner seeking specific performance of
agreement to sell, the contractual party to such agreement are the
necessary and proper party. The respondent No.2, who sought to be
joined, can neither be considered as necessary or proper party,
inasmuch as the respondent No. 2 is indisputably not privy to any
agreement to sell executed between petitioner and respondent No.1,
for which the suit filed.
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026
C/SCA/15731/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240768912026)
8. The aspect of the necessary and proper party has been duly
considered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mumbai
International Airport Private Ltd. (supra) , which, in fact, taken note
by the Trial Court while passing impugned order. Thus, I would not
like to burden this order again referring the relevant passages of the
aforesaid judgment. It is true that the plaintiff is dominus litis but
that does not mean that any person can be joined in the suit.
According to me, the Trial Court is required to consider before
allowing any party to add/delete in pending suit as to whether he/she
is necessary or proper party or not. Since the Trial Court did not find
the respondent No.2 as necessary or proper party, it has corrected not
exercised its discretion vested under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC.
9. At the same time, at this stage, this Court would like to only
observe that in future, if the Trial Court feels that presence of
respondent No. 2, i.e., Capri Global Capital Limited, is required for
effective implementation of the decree which may be passed in
favour of the petitioner, at that stage, it is open for the Trial Court to
exercise its discretion so vested under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC,
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026
C/SCA/15731/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240768912026)
and in such scenario, it may join the respondent No. 2, otherwise
not.
10. Having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any
gross error of law committed by Trial Court which requires an
interference by this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
It is well settled that a mere error of law on part of the Trial Court is
not a ground to interfere with the impugned order, as there should be
an egregious error committed by the Trial Court to warrant
interference by this Court.
11. With the aforesaid observations and reasons, I do not find any
merit in this petition, and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Lalji Desai
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026