Dismissed

Latabai Balaji Kapse v. Janabai Anantrao Pind (Suryawanshi) and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2011WP/494/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner, defendant no.2 in a civil suit, sought to challenge an order allowing amendment of plaint introducing a mortgage claim. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no prejudice and no occasion to intervene at that stage of trial.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed; petitioner gets liberty to challenge the order after final decision of the suit.

Latabai Balaji Kapse Vs Janabai Anantrao Pind… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 494 OF 2011

¶4

Latabai w/o. Balaji Kapse, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Shirur Tajband, Taluka : Ahmedpur, District : Latur, through Power of Attorney Holder, Balaji s/o. Ramrao Kapse, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Shirur Tajband, .. Petitioner Taluka : Ahmedpur, (Original defendant District : Latur. no.2) versus

¶5

Janabai w/o. Anantrao Pind (Suryawanshi), .. Respondents Age : 26 years, (Nos.1 to 6 - Occupation : Household, Original plaintiffs R/o. Masalga, & Taluka : Nilanga, No.7 - Original District : Latur, defendant no.1.) and 6 others.

¶6

Mr. Jayant R. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶7

(2)

¶8

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶9

DATE : 24TH JANUARY 2011

¶10

COURT'S ORDER :

¶11

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶12

The suit instituted in the year 2000 and pending at the stage of cross examination of witness No.2 for the defendant has been allowed to be amended. The amendment seeks to introduce a mortgage by defendant no.1 for obtaining loan. The trial court has found amendment relevant.

¶13

Mr. J.R. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that a totally new story is sought to be introduced, that too without any documentary proof.

¶14

After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, who is defendant no. 2, purchaser of property from defendant no.1. The trial court has already recorded that merits of the amendment are not relevant at this stage. The petitioner can always seek appropriate consequential amendment and raise necessary defences. Hence, the petition is not entertained at this stage.

¶15

(3)

¶16

In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to challenge the impugned order, after the suit is finally decided, if occasion therefor arises.

¶17

( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE

¶18

bgp/494wp

Latabai Balaji Kapse v. Janabai Anantrao Pind (Suryawanshi) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latabai Balaji Kapse v. Janabai Anantrao Pind (Suryawanshi) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sillod Shikshan Sanstha Sillod through Secretary and Anr. Vs Sunanda Purushottam Devare and Anr.

Prayagbai Baburao Jadhav and Ors. Vs Bhanudas Ashruba Jadhav

Shoba Manikchand Nahar Vs Ramling Shivling Gulwe and Anr.

Sushila Shankar Khilari and Ors. Vs Sunita Nana Rohakale

Larsen and Tourbo Limited Vs Shrirang Laxman Lande

Yasin Ramjan (Pinjari)@ Munsuri. Vs Babasaheb Shankarrao Labade.