Allowed

Tikam Co-Op. Hous. Soc. Ltd. v. Sangita B. Vanmali

Bombay HC19 Oct 2005WP/1688/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed amendment to a cooperative dispute to include claims for additional defaults and possession, overruling the appellate court's view that Order 7 Rule 7 CPC barred such addition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order reversed by the Appellate Court is set aside. Amendment is allowed to be carried out within two weeks.

Tikam Co-Op. Hous. Soc. Ltd. Vs Sangita B. Vanmali — Bombay HC (2005) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1688 OF 2004

¶4

Tikam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Petitioner vs. Smt.Sangita B. Vanmali Respondent Mr.C.P.Deogirikar for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjeev Sawant for the respondent.

¶5

CORAM : S. A. BOBDE,J. DATED : 19th October 2005

¶6

P.C.

¶7

Rule. Returnable forthwith.

¶8

Mr.Sanjeev Sawant, advocate waive service on behalf of the respondent.

¶9

By consent, rule is heard finally at this stage.

¶10

4.	The petitioner-s	ocieity is	aggrie	ved by	the orde	r of
the	Maharashtra	State	Coo	perative	Appellate	Court
reversing	the order	of the	Cooper	ative Court	which	had
allowed	the petitione	r to	amend	its	dispute.	The
petitioner-soci	ety had	filed		dispute	against	the
respondent	originally	for reco	very	of the	sum	of
Rs.24,710/-.	It	appears	that	pending	the	dispute,
according	to the	society,	the	respondent	committed	more

¶11

¶12

defaults	and	owed an	amount	of	Rs.79,316.50	on account
of	maintenance	and	the	a	mount of	Rs.1,18,173.69
calculated	as	per the	provisi	ons	of the	bye-laws of the
society	till	31.8.2002.	As		a result	thereof, the
petitioner-so	ciety	applied	for		amendment	of their
original	dispute	to	include	the	aforesaid	claim and a
further	prayer	that	in	default,	the	respondent be

¶13

ordered to deliver possession of the flat in question

¶14

since that is the only other mode of recovery.

¶15

5.	This		applica	tion for am	endment	was allo	wed by	the
Cooperative	C	ourt	to	prevent	mu	ltiplicity	of	proceedings
and	having	re	gard	to the	fact	that	defaults	have
committed	pendi	ng	the	dispute.	How	ever, by	the	impugned
order,	the		Revision	al court	has	reversed	this	order
interalia	on		the	ground that	the	amendment	would	void
the	basic	rule	of	the Code	of	Civil Proce	dure	provided

¶16

by Order 7 Rule 7. Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil

¶17

Procedure reads as follows:

¶18

"7.	Relief	to	be	spec	ifically	sta	ted.	-
Every	plaint	s	hall	state		specific	ally	the
relief	which	the		plai	ntiff	clai	ms	either
simply	or in	the	altern	ative,	and	it	shall	not
be	necessary	to	ask	for	gener	al	or	other
relief	which	may	always	be	given	as	the	Court
may	think just	to	the s	ame	extent	as	if it	had
been	asked for.		And	the	same	rule	shall	apply

¶19

to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement."

¶20

¶21

6.	It is	difficult	to compre	hend the	reasoning of	the
Cooperate	Appellate	Court	that Or	der 7	Rule 7 bars	the
disputant	from	making	an a	dditional	claim which	has
arisen	pending	adjudicati	on of	the di	spute. In	the
circumstance	s and	havin	g regard	to the	fact that	the
refusal	of	amendmen	t would	drive	the petitioner	-society
to	another	litigation	in rega	rd to	virtually the	same
subject	matter	between	the same	parties,	I am of	the
view	that in	order	to	avoid	this multiplicity	of

¶22

litigation, the impugned order be set aside and the

¶23

order of the Cooperative Court be restored.

¶24

7. Hen	ce th	e	impugne	d	order	is set	asi	de	and	the
amendment	is	allowed.		The	respon	dent	is at	lib	erty	to
make	such	approp	riate	app	lications	for	insp	ection		etc.
of the	document	as	may	be	advised	and	shall	also	be	at
liberty to	file		appropri	ate	re	ply	to	the		amended

¶25

portion. Amendment be carried out within a period of

¶26

two weeks from today.

¶27

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶28

(S. A.BOBDE,J.)

Tikam Co-Op. Hous. Soc. Ltd. v. Sangita B. Vanmali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tikam Co-Op. Hous. Soc. Ltd. v. Sangita B. Vanmali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bapu Laxman Chavan Vs Shahaji Vithoba Chavan and Ors.

Baswavraj Mallesha Bagle and Anr. Vs Dhanajirao Toraskar and Ors.

Yalluppa Mhatru Kolsekar (Decd.)by Lrs.-Yamunabai Yalluppa Kolsekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nikhatjaham Adam Attar Vs Adam Abdul Attar

Kusumben Chheda and Ors. Vs Vidya Vinay Vivek Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Digambar Dhondu Mhatre and Ors. Vs M/S. Rajaram Construction and Anr.