Disposed

Smt. Lilabai Jaisagar Sancheti Charitable Trust, Thr. President and 3 Ors. v. Sudhir S/O Amarsingh Sanklecha and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC9 Feb 2012LPA/91/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted the appellants to withdraw the Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging an amendment of plaint in a partition suit. The Court directed the trial Court to decide the suit by 31.12.2012 and continued the interim status-quo order for two weeks to enable the respondents to file necessary applications. The appeal was disposed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Appellants permitted to withdraw appeal; trial Court directed to decide suit by 31.12.2012; status-quo continued for two weeks.

Smt. Lilabai Jaisagar Sancheti Charitable Trust, Thr. President and… — Partition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 142 OF 2010 (D)

¶4

SMT. LEELABAI JAISAGAR SANCHETI CHARITABLE TRUST, THRU PRESIDENT AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶5

SUDHIR AMARSINGH SANKLECHA AND OTHERS

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - Mr. M. M. Sudame, Advocate for the appellants Mr. J. T. Gilda, Advocate for the respondent no.1

¶8

CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 09^th FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court in pending suit. The original plaintiffs i.e. respondent nos.1 and 2 herein, had preferred an application for amendment of the plaint, which was granted by the trial Court. The order granting amendment was challenged by the present appellant/original defendant by way of a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the learned Single Judge. In our view, the petition before the learned Single Judge was essentially in the nature of petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dismissed the

¶10

¶11

writ petition and uphold the order granting amendment

¶12

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this appeal and he may be permitted to agitate the point about limitation before the trial Court in connection with the amendment of the plaint. He also requested that the suit may be expedited.

¶13

We accordingly permit the appellants to withdraw this appeal. The trial Court may decide the question whether the prayer made in the suit by way of amendment is time barred or within limitation, at the time of hearing the suit. The said question of limitation is, therefore, kept open.

¶14

Considering the fact that the suit is filed essentially for partition of the property and considering the nature of dispute involved, while permitting the appellant to withdraw this appeal, we direct the trial Court to decide the suit as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2012. Subject to said direction, the Letters patent Appeal is disposed as withdrawn.

¶15

At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that since the suit was stayed in this Letters Patent Appeal, he had preferred civil application for interim direction and this Court granted status-quo. The learned counsel for the appellants state that however, before the order of status-quo, the property was alienated. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are permitted to move the trial Court by filing appropriate civil application for interim orders. If any appropriate application is

¶16

¶17

preferred, the trial Court may decide the same in accordance with law after hearing all the sides. Whatever status-quo is prevailing today may be continued for two weeks from today to enable respondent nos.1 and 2 to prefer an application before the trial Court.

¶18

It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion as to whether respondent nos.1 and 2 have any prima facie case or whether any such interim order is to be granted. All these aspects are to be considered by the trial Court on its own merits and according to law and by continuing status-quo order may not mean that the Court has expressed any opinion in any manner. The order of status-quo granted accordingly in Civil Application No. 777/2011 is ordered to be continued for two weeks from today.

¶19

The Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of accordingly. All the civil applications are also disposed of accordingly.

¶20

JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

Diwale

Smt. Lilabai Jaisagar Sancheti Charitable Trust, Thr. President and 3 Ors. v. Sudhir S/O Amarsingh Sanklecha and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lilabai Jaisagar Sancheti Charitable Trust, Thr. President and 3 Ors. v. Sudhir S/O Amarsingh Sanklecha and 5 Ors.

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

Parasnath S/O Late Chandrana Prasad Singh, Chief Legal Manager, W.C.L. Vs Coal India Limited and Another

Gurjeet Singh S/O Charanjeet Singh Nirula Vs Mah.State Electricity Board Thr.Its Ex.Engineer

Nandlal Sagarmal Agrawal,Murtizapur Vs Municipal Council ,Murtizapur and 1.

Shri Vivek Marotrao Dabhade and Another Vs the State of Mah. and Others.

Vidarbha Gas Vessels Pvt. Ltd., Thru. Director Vs Ashok Kelwade and 23 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii Vs Smt. Sangeetadevi Agrawal