The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order allowing a plaintiff to amend plaint to include claims for mandatory injunction and impleadment of subsequent purchasers, holding that limitation issues remain open until final disposal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4003 OF 2012
Deepak S. Phalke. Versus Kum. Mehtab Abdullatif and Others.
..Petitioner. ..Respondents.
Mr. Amit Borkar for the Petitioner.
Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : December 11, 2012 .
P. C. :
1 / 2
patilsr
subsequent events. By this amendment, Respondent No. 1 also claimed mandatory injunction against the Petitioner tohand over the suit property after demolishing the building constructed on the suit land during the pendency of suit.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
2 / 2
patilsr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether amendment to plaint was barred by limitation law.
Whether the trial Court erred in allowing the amendment due to subsequent events.
Deepak S. Phalke
Kum. Mehtab Abdullatif
Others
RANJIT MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
