Writ petition challenging the Trial Court's order allowing amendment to implead daughters as parties in a partition suit. The High Court held that the impleadment was correctly allowed and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed with no costs.
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.
1 wp 1293.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1293 OF 2013
Vikas Deelip Shingade .. Petitioner
Versus
Vatsala Nagnath Nalapure and others .. Respondents
Shri Suhas P. Urgunde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2013.
PER COURT :
2 wp 1293.13
parties. After the trial has commenced the said amendment application could not have been allowed. The learned counsel further submits that, the right which has been accrued to the petitioner cannot be allowed to be taken away by way of amendment that too belatedly. The learned counsel submits that, the Trial Court has erroneously exercised the jurisdiction.
[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Feb. 13
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Trial Court's discretion to allow amendment for impleading necessary parties after trial commenced.
Whether procedural lapses permit a party to claim a vested right to amendment belatedly filed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vikas Deelip Shingade
Vatsala Nagnath Nalapure
S. V. Gangapurwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
