Here, the plaintiff sued and had the decree. Thus, he is
entitled to the decretal amount. When he wanted to withdraw
that amount, somebody else objects. That somebody maybe his
brother or his erstwhile agent. However strong that person's
right to recovery maybe, he cannot file an intervention
application in an already disposed of matter and stay the
execution of the decree or nullify the decree without proper
judicial recourse. {Para 36}
37. After all is said and done, here comes the palliative. If
Subhash has an enforceable claim against either Rajesh or
Sudarshan, the above suit does not defeat his rights. Much less
do these observations affect Subhash’s supposed rights.
38. Under these circumstances, I express my inability to
entertain this application despite diligent efforts made by Shri
Savant, the applicant’s counsel. I, therefore, dismiss it.
39. Shri Savant, at this juncture, wants this Court to
restrain the respondent-plaintiff from withdrawing the decretal
amount for at least eight weeks, so the applicant could explore
his remedial options. The Respondent's counsel, of course,
strongly opposes this plea.
As the intervention application in a disposed of suit has
been summarily rejected, I see no justification for the Court to
grant such relief as the applicant sought. The request stands
rejected.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 11624 OF 2021
IN
SUIT NO. 2700 OF 2011
RAJESH SAICHAND SHARMA Vs SUDERSHAN GANGARAM RAJULA
CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
DATE : 11th JUNE, 2021.
Print Page