Disapproved amendment of plaint in civil suit. Court allowed amendment but directed filing of additional written statement within four weeks. No writ interference warranted.
Order for amendment allowed; additional written statement to be filed within four weeks.
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
Ash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3320 OF 2009
Sou. Alpana Appasaheb Pawar. .. Petitioner Vs Shri Vijay Yallappa Shinde & Anr. .. Respondents
Shri Ashutosh M. Kulkarni for the Petitioner. Shri Umesh R. Mankapure for the Respondents.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL 2010
P.C:
. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner 1st
Defendant. By the order impugned, the application made by the Respondents – Plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the application for amendment is not simply under Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but it is an application for impleading the parties. He, therefore, submitted that such amendment could not have been permitted at this stage.
2
no prayer made for adding parties. The Respondents want to add an averment at the end of Paragraph 2 of the Plaint stating that the heirs of Smt. Nankibai Dhanrajmal Pujari have appointed the 2nd Defendant as their Constituted Attorney. The other amendment sought is for deletion of the words “15 persons” by substituting the same by the words “23 persons”.
(A.S.OKA, J)
Sou. Alpana Appasaheb Pawar
Shri Vijay Yallappa Shinde
A.S. Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court