Dismissed

Prakash Ramrao Bodkhe v. Sandhu Karbhari Khade (Died) Lrs Tarabai Sandu Khade and Ors.

Bombay HC2 May 2012WP/981/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting an amendment application in a suit for specific performance. The court held that the amendment sought a different cause of action by focusing on a compromise agreement for a different land measurement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs; record and proceedings sent back.

Prakash Ramrao Bodkhe Vs Sandhu Karbhari Khade (Died)… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P. 981.2012

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 981 OF 2012

¶5

Office Notes,Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram,appearances, ................................ Court's orders or CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. directions and Registrar's orders DATE : 02/05/2012.

¶6

Mr. N.T.Tribhuwan, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.D.Bade Patil, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 to 3.

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

The petitioner had filed Suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 30/12/1995. The defendant led his evidence. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application for amendment seeking relief of specific performance of 2 Acres of land in stead of 4 Acres 17 gunthas originally claimed and also to insert averments regarding the compromise effected in earlier Suit and in alternate for refund of earnest amount. The trial Court allowed the amendment application to the extent of refund of earnest amount. Rest of the amendment is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶9

Mr. Tribhuwan, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶10

2 W.P. 981.2012

¶11

submits that the compromise between the father of the present petitioner and the respondent was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. It was only when the said document was produced in the evidence of the defendant, the plaintiff got the knowledge. The learned counsel submits that by amendment, the plaintiff is claiming the relief for lesser area of the land than actually claimed. No prejudice would be caused to the defendant. There is no impediment to allow the amendment. Under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, the amendment can be allowed at any stage. The learned counsel further contends that the nature of the Suit would not change.

¶12

Mr. Bade Patil, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order.

¶13

It is not disputed that the defendant in their Written Statement only had averred about the compromise. The present application is filed after the defendants have led their evidence. The due diligence is absent.

¶14

By amendment, the petitioner would be claiming specific performance of the compromise. The agreement of which the specific performance is sought, appears to be in respect of 2 Hectors 20 R. land. The cause of action would be different.

¶15

3 W.P. 981.2012

¶16

The Court has considered this aspect while not allowing the amendment in respect of the relief to the extent of 2 Acres of land.

¶17

In light of the above, no error is committed by the Court in rejecting the amendment application. No case for interference is made out in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs.

¶19

The record and proceedings be sent back immediately.

¶20

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ]

¶21

KNP/W.P. 981.2012

Prakash Ramrao Bodkhe v. Sandhu Karbhari Khade (Died) Lrs Tarabai Sandu Khade and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Ramrao Bodkhe v. Sandhu Karbhari Khade (Died) Lrs Tarabai Sandu Khade 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

Bhanudas Dadarao Bokade(Patil) Vs Girijappa Baburao Gore

Nagnath Hanmant Lohar (Jadhav) Vs Narayan Narsing Lohar (Jadhav)

Minabai Nova Walvi Vs the Returning Officer, Group Gram Panchyat Asali and Ors.

Narsing Matsya Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha, Vanwada Latur Thru Secretary Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Tapi Parisar Vidya Mandal Thr. Its Chairman Vs Dr. Pramod Ghansham Ingle and Anr.

Kulsumbee Abdul Rashid and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.