Dismissed

Vinod Murji Savla v. Jitendra Karsandas Thakkar and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Apr 2006WP/2335/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the Trial Court's partial rejection of an application to amend a plaint in a tenancy suit. The Court found the amendment application malafide, intended to delay proceedings, and not a fit case for writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time to dispose of the underlying suit by four months from the date of the order.

Vinod Murji Savla Vs Jitendra Karsandas Thakkar and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 2335 OF 2006

¶4

 Shri Vinod Murji Savla ... Petitioner

¶5

V/s

¶6

 1. Shri Jitendra Karsandas Thakkar
 & ors. ... Respondents

¶7

 Mr. G.V. Murti for the petitioner.

¶8

 Mr. Girish Godbole with Vinod Thakkar for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 7.

¶9

 Mr. Vishal i/by Anjal Trivedi for Resp.Nos. 15 & 16.

¶10

 Mr. S.R. Mishra for Respondent No.18.

¶11

 Mr. A.R. Desai, Representative of Court Receiver
 present.

¶12

CORAM: P.V. KAKADE, J.

¶13

DATED: 5TH APRIL, 2006

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

 1. Heard learned counsel for all the concerned parties.
 Perused the record.

¶16

 2. The petitioner plaintiff has impugned the order
 dated 20.2.2006 passed by the trial Court partly
 rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint
 and partly rejecting the Interim Notice No. 120 of 2006

¶17

¶18

 in R.A.D. Suit No. 501 of 2001 filed by him.

¶19

 3. The petitioner has filed R.A.D. Suit No. 501 of
 2001 for declaration of his tenancy in respect of the
 suit property and for certain permanent injunctions
 against the defendants not to interfere with his
 peaceful use, occupation and possession of the suit
 premises and from dispossessing him except by due
 process of law and has sought to rely upon amended
 statements made by him in the plaint.

¶20

 4. It is an admitted position that, on two earlier
 occasions the plaint came to be amended and third
 amendment application is filed with a view to bring on
 record the facts which have taken place pertaining to
 the dispute after those amendments were made and the
 Court Receiver was appointed by the concerned Court.

¶21

 5. In this regard, it must also be pointed out before
 going to the merits of the petition that Writ Petition
 No. 9116 of 2004 was adjudicated by this Court by order
 dated 10.3.2005 which was also preferred by the present
 petitioner and which came to be disposed of with
 direction that pending suit would be expedited and the
 Trial Court was directed to hear and dispose of the suit

¶22

¶23

 expeditiously at any rate within a period of one year
 from the date of receipt of the order dated 10.3.2005.
 It was further directed that the amendment application
 made by the petitioner shall be decided by the Trial
 Court within a period of two months from the date of the
 order. It is to be noted that since the order was in
 the writ petition, said application for amendment was
 partly allowed.

¶24

 6. On this back ground, the third application for
 amendment of the plaint came to be filed as per the
 schedule which is annexed to the petition at page Nos.
 60 to 118.

¶25

 7. I have perused the entire contents of the schedule
 alongwith the contents of the plaint. I have also
 perused the impugned order which is exhaustively passed
 after taking into account all the facets involved

¶26

 in the amendment application. On hearing both parties

¶27

 and perusing the record, the Trial Judge was of the
 opinion that the notice was to be made absolute only to
 the extent adding proposed respondent as defendant
 No.18. The notice was also made absolute for amendment

¶28

 of prayer clause (a) and para 9 of the plaint as per the
 schedule and remaining amendment sought for came to be

¶29

¶30

 rejected on various grounds. Hence the present petition
 to the extent of rejected part of the schdule of the
 amendment.

¶31

 8. On careful scrutiny of the entire petition vis-a-vis
 the facts and circumstances, I have no doubt that the
 Trial Judge has passed the order which is found to be
 just, legal and proper. It is obvious from the record
 that the contents which are sought to be introduced in
 the plaint were well within the knowledge of the
 plaintiff but it appears that the plaintiff used to take
 one after another application with a view to delay the
 matter and, therefore, I agree with the findings
 recorded by the Trial Court that the application is
 taken out only with sole intention to delay the
 proceedings and defeat the directions given by this
 Court in Writ Petition No. 9116 of 2004 dated 10.3.2005
 and, therefore, the petition is malafide.

¶32

 9. Apart from this aspect, it is to be noted that
 basically what is sought to be introduced are the
 contents which at the most could form part of the
 evidence and it is quite settled position of law that
 the evidence cannot be allowed to be pleaded. Similar
 would be the reasoning so far as introduction of

¶33

¶34

 documents sought to be produced by way of amendment. It
 is needless to mention that the documents could be
 introduced in the course of the evidence by confronting
 the parties with permission of the Court and for that
 purpose no amendment of the pleadings is required. The
 learned Trial Judge has also observed that the
 amendment, if allowed, would change the character of the
 suit and would also change the cause of action and it
 would further effect in taking away the accrued right of
 the other side which cannot be allowed in law.

¶35

 10. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it is not
 a fit case to interfere with under the writ jurisdiction
 contemplated under Art. 227 of the Constitution of
 India and, as such, the petition stands dismissed with
 no order as to costs.

¶36

 11. It is clarified that the period of disposal of the
 suit given to the Trial Court has already passed and,
 therefore, the period to dispose of the suit is extended
 by four months from the date of this order.

¶37

 Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

Vinod Murji Savla v. Jitendra Karsandas Thakkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Murji Savla v. Jitendra Karsandas Thakkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganpat Sonu Tatkar Vs Bajrang Raghu Mane

Ravindra Vasant Shinde (Legal Heir of v.G.Shinde) Vs Narsinha Narayan Shirodkar and Ors.

Ankush Baburao Kawade Vs Tanaji Shankar Jadhav and Ors. .

Indian Overseas Bank Vs Chhotalal Laxmichand Vasa

The Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Pratap Narandas

The Maharashtra State of Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Pratap Narandas