Dismissed

Shri. Jagannath Bapu Jagtap v. Shri. Ramesh Shrirang Jagtap and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Mar 2013WP/679/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for amendment of plaint. The Trial Court refused the amendment due to res judicata and delay, accepting contentions on cross-examination admissions. No interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; impugned order dated 28.11.2012 of the Trial Court stands affirmed.

Shri. Jagannath Bapu Jagtap Vs Shri. Ramesh Shrirang… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-679-13.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.679 of 2013

¶3

Jagannath Bapu Jagtap versus

¶4

Ramesh Srirang Jagtap & Ors.

¶5

: Petitioner

¶6

: Respondents

¶7

Mr. K. B.Sonwalkar for the Petitioner

¶8

CORAM:- R M SAVANT, J DATED :- 15^th MARCH, 2013.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 28-11-2012 passed by the Learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Phaltan, by which order the application Exhibit 81 filed by the Petitioner for amendment of the plaint came to be rejected. The said application was filed for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the Defendant No.1 has constructed the house in the property of the Plaintiff. The Trial Court rejected the said application Exhibit 81 on the ground of res judicata as also on the ground that there is a delay in filing the said application.

¶11

2 It is required to be noted that the Petitioner/Plaintiff had earlier filed an application Exhibit 56 for amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate the averments regarding the construction by the Defendants in the property of the Plaintiff and claim possession of the said property. The said

mmj

1/2

wp-679-13.sxw

application was rejected on the ground that the Plaintiff has not given particulars as to when the Defendants had constructed upon in the Plaintiff’s property. It is thereafter that the instant application Exhibit 81 came to be filed by the Plaintiff. It appears that the evidence of the Plaintiff is over and in the cross-examination the Plaintiff appears to have made a statement that the construction of the Defendant is in the suit property and that the Defendants have constructed upon the same about 25 years back. The Trial Court as indicated above has rejected the application on the twin grounds i.e. on the ground of res judicata in as much as the application Exhibit 56 having been rejected earlier and also on the ground that the amendment is sought is not in respect of the events which have occurred after filing of the Suit. The Trial Court accepted the contention raised on behalf of the Defendants that it is to get over the admissions in the crossexamination that the application for amendment of the plaint, has been filed.

¶16

3 Having heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the impugned order, no exception could be taken to the reasons mentioned by the Trial court. No case for interference is therefore made

¶17

out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

(R M SAVANT, J)

¶19

mmj

¶20

2/2

Shri. Jagannath Bapu Jagtap v. Shri. Ramesh Shrirang Jagtap and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Jagannath Bapu Jagtap v. Shri. Ramesh Shrirang Jagtap 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

Shantinath Bapu Gath Vs Shri. Baburao Dattatray Bhui and Ors.

Smt. Hira Jayavant Dabholkar (Decd) through Lrs and Ors. Vs Shri. Krishna Shantaram Chamankar and Ors.

The Mathadi Hamal Kamgar Sahakari Society Ltd, through Chairman Vs the Sr. Regional Manager (Mah), Food Corporation of India and Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S. Anjur Service Centre, through Partners, Bipin S. Gada

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S. Anjur Service Centre, through Partners, Bipin S. Gada

Ajit Subhash Gaikwad Vs Pimpari Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri, Pune