Petitioner challenged the Trial Court's order allowing amendment of plaint to implead subsequent events. Court held amendment allowed despite limitation bar, keeping limitation issue for final disposal, and dismissed writ.
Writ petition dismissed without interference with impugned order.
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 the application to amend plaint to implead subsequent events is barred by limitation.
Whether the Trial Court committed error in allowing the amendment on the ground of subsequent events.
Deepak S. Phalke
Kum. Mehtab Abdullatif
RANJIT MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
