Allowed

Raghunath Babulal Mangrule v. Meerabai Dhanraj Khandare and Another

Bombay HC24 Jun 2014WP/302/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad, disposed of two writ petitions challenging orders whereby the trial court rejected amendment applications seeking to change reliefs to possession. With respondents absent, the court allowed the amendments.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 17-12-2013 rejecting amendments are set aside; applications Exhibit-156 and Exhibit-157 are allowed; defendants may file written statement on amended plaint.

Raghunath Babulal Mangrule Vs Meerabai Dhanraj Khandare… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 W.P.295.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 295 OF 2014

¶4

Shri Ishwar Babulal Mangrule, Age: 49 years, Occu.Agril.,/service, R/o Waghari, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. ...Petitioner versus 1. Sau. Meerabai Dhanraj Khandare, Age: 57 years,Occu: Household,/Agril. R/o Jamner, (Pura) Near Durganagar Saw Mill, Bhusawal Road, Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Shri Shamlal Dulichand Teli, Age: 62 years, Occu: Labour, R/o Waghari, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondents …... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 302 OF 2014 Shri Raghunath Babulal Mangrule, Age: 49 years, Occu.Agril.,/service, R/o Waghari, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. ...Petitioner versus 1. Sau. Meerabai Dhanraj Khandare, Age: 57 years,Occu: Household,/Agril. R/o Jamner, (Pura) Near Durganagar Saw Mill, Bhusawal Road, Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Shri Shamlal Dulichand Teli, Age: 62 years, Occu: Labour, R/o Waghari, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondents ..... Mr. G.V. Wani, Advocate for the Petitioners .....

¶5

2 W.P.295.14

¶6

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

¶7

DATED : 24th JUNE, 2014

¶8

Order :-

¶9

Despite service of notice with an intimation to the respondents that the petitions would be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission, none appears on their behalf.

¶10

The petitioners-plaintiffs have approached this court against orders dated 17-12-2013, rejecting applications Exhibit-156 and Exhibit-157 seeking amendments to Regular Civil Suit No. 57 of 2007 and Regular Civil Suits No. 58 of 2007 respectively, passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamner.

¶11

Shorn of other details, suffice it to consider that petitioners have instituted suits for specific performance of agreement, injunction and declaration that the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 1992 is not binding on them.

¶12

It is pleaded in the suits that plaintiffs-petitioners are in possession of the property, however, subsequently on realizing that the case may be equivocal in respect of possession over the suit property as the documents may not substantiate the same and if court rules otherwise on the same, in addition to earlier reliefs, alternatively they sought possession of the suit property under the decree that may be passed and accordingly sought amendments

¶13

3 W.P.295.14

¶14

under applications Exhibit 156 and 157. Said request of the petitioners had been purportedly opposed by the defendants contending that the plaintiffs-petitioners contend that they are in possession, in such a case, alternate prayer for possession would be incompatible and inconsistent and the plaintiffs -petitioners are not entitled to take two contrary pleas.

¶15

Taking into account aforesaid submissions and further that the matters are in the middle of evidence, the trial court with reference to proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure rejected the applications.

¶16

Mr. Wani, learned counsel appearing for petitioners-plaintiffs, inter-alia, submits that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act is a substantive provision which would be required to be considered in these suits and procedural rules under Order VII Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code would not prevent the court from exercising powers pursuant to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act. He further submits that though the petitioners are in physical possession, in case, on the basis of documents, the court purports to hold otherwise, to avoid further litigation the petitioners-plaintiffs have sought the amendments. In case amendments are not allowed, that will give rise to multiplicity of litigation, which needs to be arrested by granting the amendment applications.

¶17

4 W.P.295.14

¶18

Mr. Wani further strengthens his submissions referring to the fact that defendants have not appeared in these writ petitions and have not objected to the same, hence the amendments deserve to be allowed.

¶19

Despite service of notice on the respondents on couple of times including the one intimating that writ petition would be taken up for final disposal, none appears on their behalf to resist the petition. This in the peculiar facts tantamounts to tacit no objection to reliefs claimed in the petitions. Section 22 of Specific Relief Act allows amendment to be made for relief of possession at any stage of suit. As such, the applications Exhibit-156 and 157 deserve a positive consideration.

¶20

As such, orders dated 17-12-2013, below applications Exhibit-156 and 157, in Regular Civil Suits No. 57 of 2007 and 58 of 2007 respectively, passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamner are set aside and the applications Exhibit-156 and 157 stand allowed. Upon amendments being carried out, defendants, if they so desire may file written statement to the amended plaint.

¶21

With aforesaid, writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶22

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )

¶23

MTK

Raghunath Babulal Mangrule v. Meerabai Dhanraj Khandare and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath Babulal Mangrule v. Meerabai Dhanraj Khandare and Another

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

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Shaikh Hanif Shaikh Salim

Survarnamala Devanand More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dyandeo Namdeo Mungase Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Yashwant Govinda Mahajan Vs the University Grants Commission and Anr.

Shaikh Baba Faijjoddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijay Uttamrao Kale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others