Dismissed

Rama Sakharam Muke, Died Thr. L.Rs. Chandrabhaga and Anr. v. Chaburao Dashrath Kale and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2013WP/86/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad examined the rejection of an application for amendment of pleadings and the trial court's dismissal of a request for production of a specific document. The Court found the trial court's technical approach justified as the document was not central to the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; amendment application rejected.

Rama Sakharam Muke, Died Thr. L.Rs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 wp 86.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 86 OF 2013

¶4

Rama Sakharam Muke, Died through L.Rs. Chandrabhaga Rama Muke and another .. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chaburao Dashrath Kale and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri S. K. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 03RD APRIL, 2013.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

. The application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for amendment is rejected.

¶11

Shri Shinde, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that to avoid the multiplicity of litigation the said amendment sought in respect of document dated 01.04.2008 is necessary and relevant. According to the learned counsel earlier

¶12

2 wp 86.13

¶13

the said document was sought to be produced. The application was rejected on the ground that there was no pleading regarding the said document. Even earlier application was given seeking directions against the defendant No. 1 for production of document dated 01.04.2008. The said application is also rejected. The learned counsel submits that the document dated 01.04.2008 would also throw light on the litigation.

¶14

Proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable in as much as the plaintiffs could lay their hands on the said document only in September 2012. The Court below has taken a very technical approach.

¶15

Shri Shelke, the learned counsel for the respondents supports the order.

¶16

The suit is filed for declaration with regard to power of attorney and sale deed. No relief is claimed in regard to document dated 01.04.2008, nor the defendants have claimed any right pursuant to the alleged document dated 01.04.2008. The said document dated 01.04.2008 is not concerned with the

¶17

present dispute.

¶18

3 wp 86.13

¶19

Considering the suit filed and the stage of the suit, the Court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

¶20

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶21

bsb/April 13

Rama Sakharam Muke, Died Thr. L.Rs. Chandrabhaga and Anr. v. Chaburao Dashrath Kale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Sakharam Muke, Died Thr. L.Rs. Chandrabhaga and Anr. v. Chaburao Dashrath Kale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ushabai Ganesh Mane and Ors. Vs Ganesh Sheshrao Mane and Ors.

Kashinath Appasaheb Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Dilip Prabhakarrao Kharwadkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bhimshankar Dattatraya Deshmane and Ors. Vs Dwarkadas Shrinivas Baheti Died and Ors.

Kachru Tukaram Alanjkar Vs Eknath Vishwanath Jadhav and Others

Bashirkhan Hussainkhan Vs Sarifkhan Hussain Khan and Another