Allowed

Kondiba Nivrutti Ingole and Ors. v. Sou. Suman Maruti Kumbhar and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Oct 2015WP/3867/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of an amendment to the Written Statement filed by civil defendants, the High Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the amendment, holding the trial court erred in viewing amendments seeking new defences through disclaimer as inherently prejudicial before framing of issues.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order of the Learned Civil Judge Sangola dated 08-01-2013 quashed and set aside.

Kondiba Nivrutti Ingole and Ors. Vs Sou. Suman Maruti… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

wp-3867-13-(911)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3867 OF 2013

¶3

1 Kondiba Nivrutti Ingole Age 72 Occ Agri	) )
2 Vishvambhar Nivrutti Ingole	)
Age 67 Occ Agri	)
3 Ambadas Nivrutti Ingole	)
Age 62 Occ Agri	)
All r/ Tal Sangola Dist Solapur	) ..Petitioners
Vs.
1 Suman Maruti Kumbhar	)
Age 59 Occu Agri r/o At Jamkhed	)
Tal Jamkhed Dist Amhmadnagar	)
2 Popat Shamrao Ingole	)
Age 62 Occ Agri	)
3 Laxman Shamrao Deshmukh	)
Age 39 Occ Agri	)
Both r/o At Sangola Tal Sangola	)
Dist Solapur	) ..Respondents
Mr. A. A. Joshi for the Petitioners
Ms Poonam Bhosale for the Respo	ndent No.1

¶4

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 15^th OCTOBER, 2015

¶5

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶6

1 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 8-1-2013 passed by the Learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Sangola, by

1 of 3

mmj

wp-3867-13-(911)

which order, the Application Exhibit 19 filed by the Defendant i.e. the Petitioner herein for amendment of the Written Statement came to be rejected.

¶11

2 The Suit in question is filed by the Respondents / Plaintiffs for injunction and possession of the suit property. The Plaintiffs rely upon a Sale Deed dated 29-10-1979 in support of their claim which Sale Deed is allegedly executed by the father of the Defendant Nos.1 and 3. The Defendants filed their Written Statement and questioned the Sale Deed. It was their case that the signatures obtained on a blank paper by the husband of the Plaintiff from the father of the Defendants has been misused by the Plaintiff and has got executed the Sale Deed from the father of the Defendants. By the amendment sought to the Written Statement, the Defendants now seek to take a stand that the husband of the Plaintiff could not have purchased the suit property in view of the fact that he was not an agriculturist. The Defendants also seek to set up title by the adverse possession. The said amendment application was replied to on behalf of the Plaintiff.

¶12

3 The Trial Court has considered the said application and has rejected the same by the impugned order. The rejection is on the ground that the Defendants are now by virtue of the amendment sought seeking to take inconsistent and self contrary pleadings and therefore if the amendment is allowed, the same would cause prejudice to the Plaintiff. In so far as the

2 of 3

mmj

wp-3867-13-(911)

amendment to the Written Statement is concerned, it is trite that the Defendants are entitled to take consistent defences. It is also trite that consideration of an application for amendment of the Written Statement stands on a different footing than the consideration of an application for amendment to the plaint. In the instant case, admittedly the issues have not been framed and it is therefore prior thereto that the amendment application was filed by the Defendants. In my view the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application by the impugned order, the impugned order would have to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Resultantly the application Exhibit 19 for amendment of the Written Statement stands allowed. The Defendants would be entitled to amend the Written Statement in terms of the amendment sought. The Defendants to carry out the amendment in the Written Statement within 6 weeks from date. The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is accordingly made absolute with parties to bear their respective costs of the Petition.

¶17

[R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶18

3 of 3

¶19

mmj

Kondiba Nivrutti Ingole and Ors. v. Sou. Suman Maruti Kumbhar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kondiba Nivrutti Ingole and Ors. v. Sou. Suman Maruti Kumbhar and Ors.

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

Vijayanand Bhaskar Churi (Since) D/H Vs M/S. Sonal Construction

Hindurao Ganu Patil Vs Balawant Pandurang Patil through Poa, Rajiv S. Mulik and Ors.

Dhanubai Dagadu Kore Vs Indu Vitthal More and Anr.

The Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs Sou. Suman Subhash Dhok

Velbai Kanji Jadhavji and Co. Prop. Mathurdas Gokuldas Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and Others

Shri. Kashinath Motiram Patil and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.