This appeal challenges a single Judge's order permitting amendment of a suit. The High Court held that interference was unnecessary as the trial had not commenced. Dismissing both the appeal and notice of motion.
The principal appeal and the Notice of Motion are dismissed.
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.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 307 OF of 2009
WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2787 OF 2009 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 217 OF 2009
IN
SUIT NO. 1218 OF 2006
Kishinchand Lilaram Lalwani
...Appellant
versus
Lilaram Ladharam Lalwani and others
...Respondents
Mr. Y.S. Bhate, instructed by Mr. D.R. Shah, for the appellant. Ms. K.C. Nichani for respondent No.1.
CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR &
R.V. MORE, JJ.
DATE: DECEMBER 05, 2009.
P.C.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. In our view, the impugned order by which the learned single Judge has permitted amendment is not required to be interfered with in the present appeal as the learned single Judge found that the trial has not commenced. However, granting amendment should not mean that the claim can be said to have been proved as the plaintiff will have to prove his case in accordance with law. Subject to the same Appeal as well as the Notice of Motion are dismissed.
P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.
R.V. MORE, J.
Kishinchand Lilaram Lalwani
Lilaram Ladharam Lalwani
P.B. MAJMUDAR
R.V. MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
