Dismissed

Shri. Vishal Arun Galande and Anr. v. Smt. Ashabai Arun Galande and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2013WP/3519/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of amendments to a written statement and array of third-party purchasers as defendants in a partition suit, finding no fault with the impugned orders regarding pecuniary jurisdiction and cause of action.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the writ jurisdiction is not allowed to interfere with the impugned orders.

Shri. Vishal Arun Galande and Anr. Vs Smt. Ashabai Arun Galande and… — Partition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-3519.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3519 OF 2013

¶4

Vishal Arun Galande and Anr. : Petitioners. Versus Ashabai Arun Galande and ors. : Respondents.

¶5

Ms. Deepa Matwankar for the Petitioners.

¶6

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 12^th April 2013

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1 The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against two orders both dated 11/01/2013. By the first order the Application Exhibit 50 which was filed for amendment of the written statement so as to incorporate the counter claim came to be rejected, and by the second order the Application Exhibit 51 which was filed for arraying third parties as Defendants in the suit.

¶9

2 The Petitioners herein are the original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.68 of 2004 which has been filed by the Plaintiffs for partition. The said Application Exhibit 50 for amendment of the written statement came to be filed as the Plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit have sold some of the suit properties to the parties who are sought to be arrayed as the Defendants to the suit in question by way of Application Exhibit 51. The said alienation by the Plaintiffs is in the year 2011.

1 of 2

lgc

wp-3519.13

3 The Trial Court considering the fact that the valuation of the relief claimed in the counter claim is to the extent of Rs.9,50,000/- and therefore beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court, did not deem it fit to allow the amendment application, and also the application for arraying the third party purchasers as the Defendants to the suit. The Trial Court was of the view that it is for the Defendants to file a separate suit for the reliefs claimed against the third party purchasers.

¶14

4 In my view, having regard to the fact that the cause of action for filing the application for amendment of the written statement so as to incorporate the counter claim has arisen much after filing of the written statement in 2011, and also considering the fact that the valuation of the relief claimed in the counter claim is about the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court trying the suit in question, the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court cannot be faulted with. No case for interference is therefore made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open for the Petitioners to assert their right against the third party purchasers by filing an independent proceeding.

¶15

[R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶16

2 of 2

¶17

lgc

Shri. Vishal Arun Galande and Anr. v. Smt. Ashabai Arun Galande and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vishal Arun Galande and Anr. v. Smt. Ashabai Arun Galande 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

Vishnu Shankar Jangam and Ors. Vs Maruti Shivram Jangam

Ratan Housing Development Limited through Ashok Omprakash Jain Vs Shri. Shivaji Sarjerao Pathare and Ors.

Sheth Devkaran Mulji Jain Sasta Bhadani Chawl Trust and Ors. Vs Mahendra Himmatlal Shah and Ors.

M/S. Anukul Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chinar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

Sawalaram Anand Mahar Vs Mrs. Vaneeta Vijay Bhirmal and Ors.

Mr. Jagganath Sambhu Mane Vs Mr. Dagadu Sopan Mane and Ors.