Disposed

Shri. Sukumar Duryodhan Patil v. the State of Maharashtra, through Superintendent of Engineers, Irrigation Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2015WP/5953/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition and clarified a civil order concerning the amendment of a plaint in Kolhapur, permitting the inclusion of specific paragraphs and the deletion of others to serve justice.

What did the court decide?

Clarification of the order dated 1st January, 2013 to permit inclusion of paragraphs 7(B) and 7(B)(1) and deletion of paragraph 1(C) in the plaint.

Shri. Sukumar Duryodhan Patil Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

sbw

55.wp5953.13.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5953 OF 2013

¶6

Sukumar Duryodhan Patil

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Mr. Rajesh B. Parab for the Petitioner. Mr. Nikhil Chavan i/b. V. D. Patil for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶12

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.

¶13

DATE : 5^th MARCH, 2015.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 7^th September, 2012 passed by the learned 2^nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, as also the order dated 1^st January, 2013 passed by the same learned Judge. By the first order i.e. order dated 7^th September, 2012, the application to amend the plaint Exhibit 46 came to be partly allowed. By the second order, the review application being Exhibit 54 filed by the Petitioner-original Plaintiff came to be allowed to the extent mentioned in the said order dated 1^st January, 2013.

¶16

2] In so far as the application Exhibit 46 is concerned, a reading of paragraph 10 of the impugned order dated 7^th September, 2012 discloses that the Plaintiff was permitted to add paragraph 1(C), 2(A), paragraph 3 and paragraph 7(B)(1), however, he was not permitted to delete paragraph 1 and 14 from the original plaint. However, in the

¶17

1/3

¶18

sbw 2 55.wp5953.13.doc

¶19

operative part, the Trial Court in clause (3) has permitted the Plaintiff to add paragraph 1(A), 1(C), para 2, 2(A), para 3 and was not permitted to delete paragraph 1 and 14 from the original plaint. The grievance of the Plaintiff was that though paragraph 7(B)(1) was allowed to be incorporated the same did not find a place in the said clause (3) and that though there is no paragraph numbered as paragraph 1(C), in the amendment application in the operative part in clause (3) there is a reference to paragraph 1(C). The Plaintiff, therefore, filed an application for review of the said order dated 7^th September, 2012. The Trial Court allowed the said review application and permitted the Plaintiff to incorporate paragraph No.6, 7 and 7(B). However, there is no reference to deletion of paragraph 1(C) from the operative part of the impugned order in clause (3) as also inclusion of paragraph 7(B)(1) which was allowed to be incorporated and finds a mention in the first impugned order.

¶20

3] In my view, therefore, the interest of justice would be served if without relegating the parties to another round before the Trial Court, the second impugned order dated 1^st January, 2013 is clarified, by observing that paragraph 1(C) which finds a place in clause (3) of the operative part is deleted and paragraph 7(B)(1) which appears in paragraph 10 of the first impugned order would stand included. Hence, the Plaintiff would be entitled to include paragraph 7(B) and 7(B)(1) in

¶21

2/3

¶22

sbw 3 55.wp5953.13.doc the plaint and paragraph 1(C) would stand deleted from the first impugned order. The order dated 1^st January, 2013 passed by the Trial Court would stand clarified accordingly. With the said observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶23

(R. M. SAVANT, J.)

¶24

wadhwa

¶25

3/3

Shri. Sukumar Duryodhan Patil v. the State of Maharashtra, through Superintendent of Engineers, Irrigation Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sukumar Duryodhan Patil v. the State of Maharashtra, through Superintendent of Engineers, Irrigation Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salim Umar Tamboli Vs Shailesh Narayan Kulthe and Ors.

Prakash Bankatlal Soni and Ors. Vs Gitanjali Chetanrao Dhindale and Ors.

Sou. Rajashri Yogesh Kininge Vs Shri. Bhalchandra Kallappa Hagare and Ors.

Karveer Bhagini Mandal Vs Karveer Bhagini Sahakari Bhandar Ltd. and Anr.

Suhas Gajanan Tillu Vs Vijaykumar Digambar Kulkarni and Other

Smt. Dropadi Jalindar Kamble and Ors. Vs Sau. Yamabai Shamrao Kamble and Ors.