Disposed
Shyamsunder Sadashiv Gokhale v. Nanasaheb @ Mahadev Ganpat Barate
Bombay HCWP/5996/2007
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
INININ THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ssm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5996 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda
of Coram, appearances, Court’s
Orders or directions and
Registrar’s OrdersCourt’s or Judge’s Orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr.D.M.Gupte for the Petitioner.
Mr.V.B.Tapkir for the Respondent.
CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.
DATED : 23rd October, 2008.
P.C.
. The Plaintiff’s Application to amend the
plaint by bringing some more sentences to
clarify the averments already made, including
correction is rejected. Considering the stage
of the proceedings and as the issues are also
not framed, I see there is no reason to reject
the Application of amendment.
2. In view of this, in the interest of justice,
keeping all points open, the amendment
Application is allowed. The Petition is allowed
as prayed. However, it is subject to costs of
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as
already deposited in the trial Court be
withdrawn by the Defendants.
( 2 )
[ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]
Plaintiff
Defendants
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court