Dismissed

Pravin Baburao Sapkal v. Kamalbai Shivaji Sapkal and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Feb 2013WP/405/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging an appellate court's order allowing the amendment of a plaint's boundaries and granting possession. The court held that amendment merits need no inquiry prior to grant; the appellate court's remand was binding; and the respondent could raise limitation as a defence in the suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, with no costs awarded to the petitioner.

Pravin Baburao Sapkal Vs Kamalbai Shivaji Sapkal and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 405.2013

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 405 OF 2013

¶5

Pravin Baburao Sapkal V/s Sou. Kamalbai Shivaji Sapkal & Ors.

¶6

Office Notes,Office	Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of
Coram,appearances,	................................
Court's orders or	CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.
directions and
Registrar's orders	DATE : 04/02/2013.

¶7

Mr. V.D.Patnoorkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R.B.Deshpande, Advocate for Resp. No. 1.

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

The application for amendment in the plaint i.e. boundaries and the relief of possession is allowed. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶10

Mr. Patnoorkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was remanded by the appellate Court with the specific purpose. The trial Court could not have entertained the application. Even the nature of the Suit is changed. The boundaries of the suit house are changed. Even the relief of possession, which is barred by limitation, is claimed. The trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. The same would be prejudicial

¶11

2 W.P. 405.2013

¶12

to the interest of the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 supports the order.

¶14

It is trite that the merits of the amendment are not required to be considered while considering the application for amendment. The appellate Court while remanding the matter, in para No. 2 has observed that, the matter is remanded to the trial Court with direction that the Suit be re-admitted on its original number and would be tried fresh according to law.

¶15

The earlier boundaries are denied by the defendants.

¶16

If the defendant feels that the relief of possession is barred by limitation, he may raise such defence. The amendment allowed is subject to the law of limitation.

¶17

In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶18

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶19

KNP/W.P. 405.2013

Pravin Baburao Sapkal v. Kamalbai Shivaji Sapkal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravin Baburao Sapkal v. Kamalbai Shivaji Sapkal 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

Anandrao Namdeo Ingole Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Janardhan Nathu Jangle Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatraya Badrinathappa Sakhare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manikrao Venkatti Yennawar Vs Shankarrao Hanmantrao Mahajan and Ors.

Trisharan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs Chandrashekhar Sudhakar Merkute and Ors.

Vilas Bhila Biraris Vs Parwatabai Ramchandra Patil Died Thr Lrs Sindhubai Barikrao Patil and Ors.