Dismissed

Shri. Pratap Narayan Mujumdar and Ors. v. Mrs. Sandya Avinash Davale and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2013WP/2161/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Trial Court's rejection of an amendment of the written statement filed after ten years. The amendment sought incorporation of a paragraph detailing amounts deemed received and a claim for set off.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge upholding the rejection of the amendment is affirmed.

Shri. Pratap Narayan Mujumdar and Ors. Vs Mrs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-2161.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2161 OF 2012

¶4

Pratap Narayan Mujumdar and Anr. : Petitioners. Versus Mrs.Sandya Avinash Davale and Anr. : Respondents.

¶5

Mr. J S Kapre for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Borkar for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Nitesh V Bhutekar for the Respondent No.2.

¶6

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 08^th April 2013

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1 The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order 23/11/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune by which order the application for amendment of the written statement came to be rejected. The amendment sought by way of Application Exhibit 78 was to seek incorporation of Paragraph No.16A. In the Paragraph No.16A the amounts which are deemed to have been received by the Plaintiff are mentioned. Thereafter in the concluding part of the said Paragraph it is mentioned that in the event a decree is passed in the suit, then the amount of Rs.1,42,000/- is required to be deducted from the said claim as it is averred in the said Paragraph 16A that on 29/6/2002 the Plaintiff has given authority to the Defendant No.1 to adjust the said amount of Rs.1,42,000/-.

1 of 2

lgc

wp-2161.12

2 The Trial court has rejected the said application on the ground that the amendment application has been moved after period 10 years of the filing of the suit and that the amendment which is by way of set off is barred by law of limitation.

¶13

3 In my view, considering the nature of the amendment sought which is virtually for seeking set off of the amount of Rs.1,42,000/- which the Defendant No.1 claims that he has been given authority by the Plaintiff on the basis of the letter dated 29/6/2002, the order passed by the Trial Court cannot be taken exception to. No case for interference is therefore made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

[R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶15

2 of 2

¶16

lgc

Shri. Pratap Narayan Mujumdar and Ors. v. Mrs. Sandya Avinash Davale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Pratap Narayan Mujumdar and Ors. v. Mrs. Sandya Avinash Davale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Ismail Usman Raut and Ors. Vs Smt. Noorjahan Begam Abdulgani Dhanse (Decd) and Ors.

Anil Mahadeo Howale Vs M/S. Indian Seamless Steels and Alloys

Smt. Uma Chandrashekhar Bhogaonkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sitaram Bhagaji Unhavane and Ors. Vs Dr. Sau. Pradnya Vikram Vaidya

Shri. Anil Rohidas Ugale Vs Shri. Bhimdeo Mahadeo Powar and Ors.

Shri. Gajanan Baburao Shitole and Ors. Vs Shri. Chandrakant Shankar Raut and Ors.