Dismissed

Dr. Sanjay S/O Mahadeorao Rajhans v. Honble Additional Small Causes Court Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC16 Apr 2013WP/1471/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Small Causes Court's order allowing an amendment application. The amendment sought a decree for Corporation tax during a suit for eviction. The Court held that the amendment did not alter the suit's nature and was justified to decide the controversy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; petitioner permitted to file consequential amendment within 15 days.

Dr. Sanjay S/O Mahadeorao Rajhans Vs Honble Additional… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp1471-13.order

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶3

Writ Petition No. 1471 of 2013

¶4

Dr. Sanjay Mahadeorao Rajhans

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Hon'ble Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur and another.

¶7

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

¶8

Mr. A.P. Mamdalwar, counsel for petitioner. Mr. L.V. Shrikhande, counsel for respondent no.2.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 16th April, 2013.

¶10

By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur on 20.12.2012, allowing an amendment application filed by the respondent.

¶11

The respondent is the original plaintiff. A suit was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner for eviction and possession under the provisions of Section 15(1) (b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. During the pendency of the suit and after the trial in the suit commenced, the respondent filed an application for amendment. By the proposed amendment, the respondent sought a decree against the petitioner for payment of the Corporation tax in respect of the suit property. It was the case of the respondent that the Corporation taxes were payable by the petitioner and the petitioner had not paid the same. The amendment application was opposed by the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner that a suit was instituted by the petitioner against the respondent for a direction to the respondent to pay the Corporation taxes and hence the respondent could not have filed the present amendment application seeking the payment of Corporation taxes by the petitioner. The objection raised by the petitioner

¶12

wp1471-13.order

¶13

was overruled by the trial court and by the impugned order the trial court allowed the amendment application.

¶14

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order, as also the amendment application, it appears that the Small Causes Court was justified in allowing the amendment application. The proposed amendment did not change the nature of the suit as the suit was filed by the respondent landlord against the petitioner for eviction and possession under section 15(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act. In the said proceedings the respondent could have as well prayed for a direction to the petitioner to pay the Corporation taxes if the petitioner was liable to pay the same and had not paid the same. Merely because the petitioner had instituted a civil suit against the respondent for a direction to the respondent to pay the Corporation taxes, it cannot be said that the respondent could not have prayed that the petitioner should pay the Corporation taxes. Since the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the suit and was necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties, the trial court rightly allowed the amendment application. The order is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

¶15

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner is however permitted to file the consequential amendment within a period of 15 days. Order accordingly.

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

Hirekhan

Dr. Sanjay S/O Mahadeorao Rajhans v. Honble Additional Small Causes Court Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sanjay S/O Mahadeorao Rajhans v. Honble Additional Small Causes Court Nagpur and Another

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

Govindrao Haribhau Gaikwad Vs Shantabai Ganpatrao Chaudhari and Others

Shri. Sudhakar S/O Shankarrao Gawande Vs Sau. Vinodidni W/O Sudhakar Gawande

Ravindra S/O Govindrao Kaware Vs Haridas S/O Kisan Meshram

City of Nagpur Corporation the Municipal Commissioner Vs Vishnu Devideen Samundre

Dewanand S/O Hemchandra Ramteke and Anr. Vs Sunita W/O Bhimdas Dhargave

Vilas Bhagwan Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Collector, Yavatmal and Others