Partly allowed

Rajendra Hindurao Patil and Anr. v. Jaya Hindurao Patil and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2011WP/7057/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a partition suit, the High Court quashed the impugned order that rejected the petitioner's application to strike out the respondent-plaintiff's rejoinder. The court held that Amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was the correct remedy.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order admitting the rejoinder and directed the respondent-plaintiff not to have the rejoinder taken on record; allowed the petitioner to file an application for amendment of the plaint.

Rajendra Hindurao Patil and Anr. Vs Jaya Hindurao Patil and Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2011)

wp7057.10.sxw

gst

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7057 OF 2010

¶6

Rajendra Hindurao Patil & Ors. .... V/s	....	....	..Petitioners.
Kum.Jaya Hindurao Patil & Ors. ..	....	...	..Respondents.

¶7

Ms.Jayshree Akolkar, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.Amit Borkar, Adv. For the respondents.

¶8

CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. th March, 2011

¶9

PC:

¶10

Rule.

¶11

Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶12

By consent of parties matter taken up for final disposal.

¶13

By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 15.3.2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner-defendant for not taking rejoinder filed by the respondent-plaintiff on record, came to be rejected.

¶14

The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for partition. Written statement to the said suit has been filed by the present petitioner. Subsequently rejoinder to the written statement came to be filed and the same was taken on record. Objecting the said rejoinder to be taken on record an application came to be filed. Same was rejected.

¶15

After the written statement was filed by the petitioner if the respondentplaintiff desired to bring in another plea on reecord only recourse for them was to file an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. I find that the learned trial Judge has erred in permitting the said

wp7057.10.sxw

gst

rejoinder to be taken on record. In that view of the matter the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The rejoinder of the present respondent-plaintiff is directed not to be taken on record.

¶20

However if the respondent-plaintiff so desires he can file an application for amendment of the plaint and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. The order directing the said rejoinder not to be taken on record would not come in the way of present respondent-plaintiff in making averments made in the said rejoinder by way of amendment to the plaint, if otherwise permissible in law. Rule made absolute aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

Rajendra Hindurao Patil and Anr. v. Jaya Hindurao Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Hindurao Patil and Anr. v. Jaya Hindurao Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Dattatray Karle. Vs Geeta Vishwanath Uplap and Ors..

Mohan Krishna Pawar Vs Ramdas Krishna Warekar and Ors.

Balkrishna Dadoba Suryawanshi Vs Govind Baburao Warape

Jagannath Bahurao Jadhav Vs Vishrant Krishna Motghare

Hind Dyes and Chemicals Vs National Ice and Cold Storage and Ors.

Kaka Rama Patil Vs Chandrakant Gopinath Patil