Dismissed

Ramesh Bhaskar Patil v. Sumanbai Chandanmal Rathi

Bombay HC18 Dec 2013WP/2294/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench heard an original defendant's writ petition assailing an order adding the petitioner as a second defendant. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the added party was necessary and proper for effective adjudication and that Rule 17 of Order VI CPC regarding delay did not apply as the trial had not commenced.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Ramesh Bhaskar Patil Vs Sumanbai Chandanmal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.2294/12

¶3

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2294 OF 2012

¶7

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

Mr.S.S.Bora, advocate for Petitioner.
Mr.J.R.Shah, advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr.A.S.Gandhi, advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶10

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶11

 Date : 18.12.2013.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The application for addition of party filed at the behest of the plaintiff is allowed. The original defendant has assailed the said order.

¶15

Mr.Bora, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the added party is not a necessary party nor a proper party. Even though injunction is claimed against added party there are no pleadings in the body of the plaint or application to that effect. According to the learned counsel, what is sought to be amended is all been pleaded in the original plaint. More explanation is being sought to be given by way of amendment. According to the learned

¶16

¶17

W.P.No.2294/12

¶18

counsel cheating and fraud of a criminal nature can not be considered by the Civil Court. The plaintiff is trying to mix up the issues. The Court has framed the issues and thereafter this application is filed. The plaintiff has lost upto the High Court in respect of temporary injunction application.

¶19

The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Rameshkumar Agrawal Vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Others" reported in 2012 (5) SCC 337 to contend that amendment can not be allowed as a matter of course. The same can not be considered unless the amendment sought is imperative for effective adjudication of the case. The amendment causes injustice to the defendant.

¶20

Mr.Shah, learned counsel supports the order and submits that the plaintiff is the master of his suit. The added party is necessary as well as proper for effective adjudication of the suit. Even relief of injunction is claimed against the added party. The trial has not commenced. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and others Vs. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and others" reported in (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases 384.

¶21

The amendment sought is with regard to the pleadings as against added party. The facts are being sought to be elaborated of

¶22

¶23

W.P.No.2294/12

¶24

the original pleadings. It is not disputed that the trial has not commenced. In light of that proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the C.P.C. is not applicable.

¶25

The plaintiff being the dominus litis of his case can add necessary and proper parties. In a case of "Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and others Vs. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and others" referred supra, the Apex Court has culled out principles with regard to the necessary and proper parties.

¶26

In the present case, the present Respondent No.2 is being added as a party. He has not objected to his impleadment as defendant No.2 but it is the original defendant who is agitating against his impleadment. Considering the fact that the relief is claimed against added party and the amendment sought is concerning the added party so also elaborating further facts of which the original pleading exist. I do not find any error committed by the trial Court while passing the impugned order.

¶27

The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶28

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶29

Dt.18.12.2013. asp/office/wp2294.12

¶30

¶31

W.P.No.2294/12

Ramesh Bhaskar Patil v. Sumanbai Chandanmal Rathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Bhaskar Patil v. Sumanbai Chandanmal Rathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Dhondiba Eknath Kajale

Savita Balkrushna @ Anil Kulkarni and Ors. Vs Waman Sopan Shitre and Anr.

Suresh Babulal Gavande Vs the Chief Officer, Nandurbar Nagar Parishad and Anr.

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Dept. Zp, Ahmednagar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sudha Kailash Chavhan and Ors.

M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sharda Chandrakant Bidave and Ors.