Allowed

Sanjay Laxman Choudhary v. Surekha Mahesh Khakare and Others

Bombay HC27 Jan 2015WP/3490/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a trial court order refusing correction on the ground that it was non-speaking and caused no prejudice to the respondent, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20th February 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division is set aside and the matter restored for fresh consideration, granting the writ petition.

Sanjay Laxman Choudhary Vs Surekha Mahesh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

W.P.No.3490/2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3490 OF 2014

¶5

Sanjay s/o Laxman Choudhary, Age 45 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Shendurni, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon ..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Surekha Mahesh Khakare, Age 38 years, Occu.Household, R/o Gondegaon, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon

¶8

Laxman s/o Shenfadu Choudhary Age 72 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Shendurni, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon

¶9

Raju s/o Laxman Choudhary, Age 43 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Shendurni, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon ..Respondents

¶10

Mr V.B.Garud, Advocate for petitioner Mr M.M.Bhokarikar, Advocate for respondent no.3

¶11

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶12

DATE : 27th January 2015 PER COURT

¶13

The order dated 20^th February 2014 whereby the learned trial Court has refused to carry out correction in the order dated 12^th December 2013 permitting corrections/amendment, is impugned in the present petition as according to petitioner, the Court has committed an error by recording Gut No.416 instead of 414. The petitioner submits that he has specifically pleaded the relief qua Gut No.414, but the Court has committed error by mentioning Gut No.416 instead of Gut No.414.

¶14

W.P.No.3490/2014

¶15

¶16

The above referred fact is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent, however, he submits that the appropriate remedy to the present petitioner is to file review petition.

¶17

In my opinion, even if there is a remedy of review to the petitioner, the fact remains that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent, if the correction, as sought by the petitioner is allowed to be carried out.

¶18

In view of above, the order dated 20^th February 2014 passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable so also its a non-speaking order.

¶19

As such, the order dated 20^th February 2014 passed below Exh.60 in R.C.S.No.81/2006, by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, is hereby set aside. The matter is restored to the file of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamner, who is directed to decide the application Exh.60 in the light of above observations.

¶20

Writ Petition stands allowed in above terms.

¶21

( N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶22

vvr

Sanjay Laxman Choudhary v. Surekha Mahesh Khakare and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Laxman Choudhary v. Surekha Mahesh Khakare and Others

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

Tukaram Ramji Bandgar and Others Vs Laxman Ramji Bandgar Gpa Dnyanoba and Others

Vasant Balu Patil Died Lrs Vijay and Others Vs Vishnu Balu Patil and Others

Laxman Shamrao Dhumak and Others Vs Ankush Ganpatrao Penak and Others

Mukund Ramchandra Kolapkar Vs Kisan Trimbak Gaikawad and Another

Vishwanath Nagu Deshmukh Vs Pandurang Gangaram Chaudhari, Lrs Rambhau Ramkrushna Navale and Others

Babulal Manik Shaikh Vs Babu Maruti Samudrawane and Others