A High Court Writ Petition was filed challenging the rejection of an application to amend a plaint to seek restoration of possession. The Court held that the petitioner faced no prejudice and dismissed the petition.
The writ petition praying for direction to amend the plaint was rejected.
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.
WP 1053/11
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1053 OF 2011
Dagadu Surjan Chaudhari (Died) Through his L.R. Prakash s/o. Dagadu Chaudhari
....Petitioner.
Versus
Sajanbai w/o. Dodha Pardeshi & Ors.
....Respondents.
Shri. Amol S. Sawant, Advocate for petitioner.
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATED: 21st February, 2011.
PER COURT :
WP 1053/11
2
WP 1053/11
3
raise proper defence in this respect before the Trial Court. In the circumstances, I find no prejudice caused to the petitioner. Hence, petition is rejected. No costs.
[ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
ssc/wp1053.11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner faced prejudice in allowing a prayer for restoration of possession to be added to the plaint after four years.
Whether the question of State Government/Collector permission for sale of disputed land needed to be determined at this interim stage.
Whether the issue of forcible dispossession and limitation should be decided by this Court or raised before the Trial Court.
Prakash s/o. Dagadu Chaudhari
Sajanbai w/o. Dodha Pardeshi & Ors.
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
