Partly allowed

Pandurang Namdeo Kamble and Ors. v. Hirabai Namdeo Kamble and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2007WP/7780/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil appeal regarding amendment of written statement, this court allowed the amendment despite theRespondents' absence and belated application, holding it necessary to decide disputes effectively, and set aside the impugned order rejecting it.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside to the extent of permitting the proposed amendment; Rule made absolute.

Pandurang Namdeo Kamble and Ors. Vs Hirabai… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

 DISTRICT :

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.7780 OF 2005

¶6

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s
 of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders
 orders or directions and
 Registrar’s orders

¶7

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr.R.B.Parab for the Petitioner.

¶8

 CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.
 DATED : 16TH JANUARY, 2007

¶9

 P.C:

¶10

 Rule, returnable forthwith and

¶11

 heard.

¶12

 2. By an order dated 13.12.2006

¶13

 Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, J. placed the

¶14

 matter for final hearing at the
 admission stage. The Respondents are

¶15

 absent despite notice. By the
 impugned order, the Petitioner’s

¶16

 application for amendment was

¶17

 rejected.

¶18

 3. As far as the deletion of a

¶19

:2:

¶20

 portion of the written statement is
 concerned,a the order warrants no
 interference. The Petitioner is at
 liberty to either explain the
 admission or to challenge the order in
 that regard from the final decree, if
 necessary.

¶21

 4. The impugned order however also
 rejects the Petitioner’s application
 to amend the written statement by
 inserting paragraph 13A (translation
 whereof is at page 46 of the plaint).
 This amendment merely seeks to rely
 upon a will dated 30.2.1999 and to
 make certain submissions based
 thereon. The will was referred to by
 Respondent No.5, who was not
 originally a party to the suit. The
 written statement of Respondent No.5
 is dated 9.6.2005. The Petitioner’s
 written statement was filed on
 11.10.2002.

¶22

 5. Though belated, in my view, the
 amendment ought to be allowed as the

¶23

:3:

¶24

 same will be necessary to effectively

¶25

 decide all the disputes to the suit.

¶26

 6. In the circumstances, the impugned

¶27

 order is set aside only to the extent

¶28

 of permitting the proposed amendment

¶29

 contained in paragraph 3 of the
 application for amendment (Exhibit

¶30

 "E") to the plaint.

¶31

 7. Rule is accordingly made absolute.

Pandurang Namdeo Kamble and Ors. v. Hirabai Namdeo Kamble and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Namdeo Kamble and Ors. v. Hirabai Namdeo Kamble and Anr.

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

Shri Vasant Rajaram Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Ramjas Ramraj Upadhyay and Anr.

Mallikarjun Shrishailappa Mudnur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajkumar Mahadeo Kawade Vs Prakash Dnyaneshwar Gaikwad

Uttamrao Ramchandra Deore Vs Fr.John Rumao and Ors.

Harun Ahmed Mahabari Vs Ahmed Mashum Mahabari (Desd) Lrs. B.A. Mahabari and Ors.