This writ petition allows an amendment application in a suit despite counsel arguing late filing, commenced trial, and limitation issues under the CPC.
Application for amendment in plaint allowed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
W.P.No.663/14
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.663 OF 2014
Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr.C.R.Deshpande, advocate for the Petitioner.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.
Date : 22.01.2014.
PER COURT :
2
made parties to the present suit. There would be a serious issue of non-joinder of parties so also limitation. According to the learned counsel, trial has commenced and without considering the aspect of due diligence, the amendment could not have been allowed. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another" reported in 2009 AIR SCW 899.
3
W.P.No.663/14
also considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the afore referred judgment. I am bound by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and the interpretation made by it of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Vidyabai and others Vs.
Padmalatha and another".
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
Dt.22.01.2014. asp/office/wp663.14
4
W.P.No.663/14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an amendment application filed at a late stage should be allowed considering trial commenced and non-joinder issues.
When does the trial commence for the purpose of allowing amendment under CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and anotherReferred¶1
2009 AIR SCW 899 · Who else cites this
Mahadeo S/o Maruti Bhanje Vs. Balaji S/o Shivaji PathadeApplied¶5
W.P.No.9659/2010 dt.4.9.2012 (Coram : Naresh H. Patil and U.D.Salvi,JJ.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
S.V.GANGAPURWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court