Dismissed

Govindrao Punjaji Gaikwad and Another v. Sandeep Asaram Wagh

Bombay HC29 Jan 2014WP/878/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the allowance of an amendment in a plaint seeking a declaration regarding a sale deed. The court held it had no jurisdiction to permit a time-barred amendment and thus dismissed the writ petition without entertaining the challenge.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. The order allowing amendment and extension of time stands.

Govindrao Punjaji Gaikwad and Another Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 W.P. 878.2014

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 878 OF 2014

¶5

Govindrao Punjaji Gaikwad & Anr. V/s Saneep Asaram Wagh

¶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 : 29/01/2014

¶7

Mr. S.S.Shete, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶8

COURT'S ORDER :

¶9

The application for amendment in the plaint seeking relief of declaration with regard to the sale deed is allowed, so also the application seeking extension of time to deposit the cost and carrying out the amendment is allowed.

¶10

Mr. Shete, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Suit is filed on 05/09/2009 for simplicitor injunction.

¶11

2 W.P. 878.2014

¶12

Thereafter, now the amendment is sought seeking relief of declaration in respect of the sale deed dated 24/05/2003. The Court has not considered that the said application for amendment and the relief that is sought by amendment is barred by limitation. Such an amendment would not have been allowed by the Court. The Court has no jurisdiction to allow the time barred amendment. According to the learned counsel, even the amendment is required to be carried out within 14 days as per the provisions of Order VI Rule 18 of C.P.C., but the same is not carried out though twice opportunity was granted.

¶13

I have gone through the Order.

¶14

It is trite that the merits of the amendment are not required to be considered while considering the amendment application. The petitioners/defendants will have every right to file additional Written Statement to the amended plaint and would have every right to raise all possible defences including that of limitation.

¶15

The trial has not yet commenced. The Court has exercised discretion in extending the time to pay the cost.

¶16

considering the above, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.

¶17

3 W.P. 878.2014

¶18

The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶19

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶20

KNP/W.P. 878.2014

Govindrao Punjaji Gaikwad and Another v. Sandeep Asaram Wagh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindrao Punjaji Gaikwad and Another v. Sandeep Asaram Wagh

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

Ramchandra Dattatrya Bhalerao. Vs Amulchand Keshavji Shaha.(L.Rs.)Santaben and Rasikla

Santosh Vaijnathrao Mundhe Vs Ramesh Uttamrao Mohalkar and Others

Janardhan Ramsingh Mahalpure and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Hukumchand Gujar and Others Vs Vijay Gulabrao Patil and Others

Pradip Shridharrao Patil Vs Shivraj Limbraj Sangve and Others

Sachin Ramrao Rohamare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others