This petition challenged an order of the Trial Court allowing an amendment to a suit for specific performance to implead the petitioner as a defendant based on a subsequent Tripartite Agreement. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding no case for interference was made out.
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.
07.10.2015
WP-836-14.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.836 OF 2014
Shri. Suresh Maruti Thorat .. Petitioner Versus Shri. Kamlesh A. Shah and others .. Respondents
Mr. D. S. Patil, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Mamta Sadh a/w Ms. Aparna Shinde, for the Respondent No.1. Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the Respondent Nos.11 to 14.
CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 7th OCTOBER, 2015
P.C.
1. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 04.10.2013 passed by the Learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel, allowing the application Exh.52 for amendment of the plaint so as to implead the Petitioner herein as a party Defendant to the suit and challenge the Tripartite Agreement dated 10.06.2010 which is in favour of the Petitioner. The suit in question i.e. Special Civil Suit No.253 of 2010 as originally filed is one for specific performance of the Development Agreement dated 27.03.2006 filed by the Respondent No.1 herein. Since during the pendency of the suit a Tripartite Agreement came to be executed between the Defendant Nos.1 to 9, the CIDCO and the
1 of 3
BGP .
07.10.2015
WP-836-14.doc
Petitioner herein that the cause for moving the instant application Exh.52 arose as the suit in question has been filed as indicated above for specific performance of the development agreement which is in respect the same land which was to be alloted under the 12.5% scheme of CIDCO. In the factual background as above, the application Exh.52 came to be filed by the Plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. Having regard to the facts as aforestated, the Trial Court deemed it appropriate to allow the application and did not countenance the submission urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the nature of the suit changes on account of the amendment sought. The amendment can also be justified on the ground of avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. In my view, no case for interference in the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
2. Needless to state that the contentions on merits in so far as
the Petitioner are concerned, are kept open for being urged at the appropriate time in the suit.
[R.M. SAVANT, J]
2 of 3
BGP .
07.10.2015
WP-836-14.doc
CERTIFICATE
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed
Judgment/Order.
3 of 3
BGP .
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Court should interfere in the Trial Court's order allowing amendment of the plaint to implead a third party defendant which alters the nature of the suit regarding specific performanc
Whether the amendment of the plaint to incorporate a Tripartite Agreement justifies a change in the nature of the suit filed for specific performance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri. Suresh Maruti Thorat
Shri. Kamlesh A. Shah
R.M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court