The High Court sitting in writ jurisdiction dismissed a petition challenging an order allowing amendment to a plaint and interim injunction in a suit. The court held no case for interference as the plaintiffs are dominus litus who can decide joinder of parties.
Writ petition dismissed. All interim orders stand vacated.
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.
wp-2583-14-(19)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2583 OF 2014
Govind Dattu Nikam & Ors.
..Petitioners
Vs.
Keda Daval Bhamre & Anr
..Respondents
Mr. Pramod N. Joshi for the Petitioners
Mr. Arun H. Palekar for the Respondents
CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, Jth October 2015
P.C. :
1 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 27-1-2014 passed by the Learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Satana, by which order the application Exhibit 29 for amendment of the plaint filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 came to be allowed and the plaint was allowed to be amended in terms of the amendment sought as also the application for interim injunction.
2 The amendment sought was to include one Gokul Kheda as Plaintiff No.3 on the ground that he is the joint purchaser of the property with the Plaintiff No.2 and therefore was required to be joined as Plaintiff to the Suit. The application to the said extent was allowed on the ground that the Plaintiffs are dominus litus and it is for them to decide as to whom to be joined
1 of 3
mmj
wp-2583-14-(19)
as Plaintiffs and the Defendants. In so far as the amendment sought was concerned, as indicated above the same was by way of inclusion of paragraphs 3A to 3D which averments disclose the position and circumstances under which the Plaintiffs have drawn the pipeline. The Trial Court was of the view that the said averments give the details in regards to the contentions raised in the pleadings by the Plaintiffs. The Trial Court therefore was of the view that the amendment sought vide paragraphs 3A to 3D are clarificatory in nature and would result in the effectual and complete adjudication of the Suit and would also avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. The Suit is of the year 2013 and in fact the application for temporary injunction is being heard at present. The commensurate amendment to the application for temporary injunction therefore also cannot be found fault with.
3 In my view therefore, no case for interference in the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. All interim orders stand vacated.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
2 of 3
mmj
wp-2583-14-(19)
CERTIFICATE
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order
3 of 3
mmj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference in the Writ Jurisdiction is warranted regarding the amendment of plaint and grant of temporary injunction in a suit regarding property and pipeline?
Whether the exclusion of an alleged joint purchaser as a plaintiff necessitates judicial interference?
Govind Dattu Nikam & Ors.
Keda Daval Bhamre & Anr
R.M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
