Disposed

Kiran Ashok Agrawal and Anr. v. Manik Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Aurangabad Th Director and Auth Signatory

Bombay HC22 Feb 2011WP/568/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a short order disposing of a writ petition after noting that an amendment application was granted, making new pleadings available. The Court held that earlier observations could not influence the Civil Court in light of new pleadings and disposed of the writ without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. Liberty to petitioner to move appropriate application within two weeks. No costs.

Kiran Ashok Agrawal and Anr. Vs Manik Hospital… — 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. 568 OF 2011

¶4

Sau. Kiran Ashok Agrawal, Age : 39 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Seven Hill, Aurangabad, .. Petitioners and another. (Original plaintiffs)

¶5

versus Manik Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., Plot Nos.6 & 7, Shivneri Nagar, Garkheda, Aurangabad, Through its Director and Authorized signatory Dr. Ulhas Manikrao Kondpalle, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Medical Practitioner. .. Respondent.

¶6

Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, with Mr. P.S. Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶7

Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Advocate, with Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), for the respondent.

¶8

(2)

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶10

DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY 2011

¶11

COURT'S ORDER :

¶12

Heard Adv. Mr. Bajaj, with Adv. Mr. Mehta, for the petitioners / original plaintiffs, and Senior Adv. Mr. Shah, with Adv. Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), for the respondent / original defendant no.8.

¶13

Attention is invited to earlier order passed by this Court on 25th January 2011. It is pointed out that application for amendment was accordingly moved and it was accordingly granted. It is further pointed out that after amendment, for the first time, some pleadings against defendant nos.7 and 8 have come on record and in the light of those pleadings, the petitioners can move fresh application and seek appropriate interim relief. Learned Senior Adv. Mr. Shah also points out that the suit now goes before Civil Judge (Senior Division) and hence forum is also changed.

¶14

Adv. Mr. Bajaj, for the petitioners, contends that observations, if any, made in the earlier orders should not influence the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) while

¶15

(3)

¶16

considering such fresh application.

¶17

It is apparent that when appropriate pleadings are placed on record for the first time by amendment, and a case is sought to be made out against the present respondent, thereby earlier observations made in the absence of those pleadings cannot influence the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division).

¶18

With liberty to the petitioners to move appropriate application, if any, within a period of two weeks from today, present petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI )

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

bgp/wp568

Kiran Ashok Agrawal and Anr. v. Manik Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Aurangabad Th Director and Auth Signatory

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Ashok Agrawal and Anr. v. Manik Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Aurangabad Th Director and Auth Signatory

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Hari Paithankar Vs Manager Jankalyan Urban Co. Op Credit Society Bhusawal and Ors.

The Dhule Municipal Corproation Dhule Throu Its Commissioner Vs Dattatraya Sadashiv Mangidkar

Prakash Mannulal Ljaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Madhukar Tulsiram Bargaje Vs the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad and Ors.

Sahebrao Kisanrao Kengar Vs the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad and Ors.

The State of Mahrashtra and Ors. Vs Hiralal Mahadu Magre and Ors.