Dismissed

Shri. Bhau Govind Rohane and Ors. v. Shri. Shankar Kanu Gaikar (Decd) through Lrs.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2015WP/837/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court summarily rejected a writ petition challenging the rejection of an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The court held the trial judge's reasoned order was not perverse given the stage of evidence and the lack of convincing merit for the petitioners' plea of inadvertence.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition summarily rejected. No order as to costs.

Shri. Bhau Govind Rohane and Ors. Vs Shri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

62wp837-15.doc

¶2

PVR 1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.837 OF 2015

¶6

1.Shri.Bhau Govind Rohane & Ors. Vs.

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

1.Shri.Shankar Kanu Gaikar (Deceased) through his legal heirs & Ors.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Mr.Vijay V.Nene, for the Petitioners.

¶11

None for the Respondents.

¶12

--- CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI , J. DATE : 25^th FEBRUARY, 2015

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 26.11.2014 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment of the plaint, stands rejected.

¶15

By the amendment application, the petitioners-plaintiffs intended to correct the description of the suit property as narrated in paragraph (1) of the plaint and prayed for certain consequential amendment.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the petitioners' case in the amendment application. The only reason set out to seek an amendment is inadvertent error on the part of the plaintiffs to inform to their Advocate about the correct description of the property.

¶17

62wp837-15.doc

¶18

PVR 2/2

¶19

Admittedly, the suit in question was filed in the year 2000. The defendants had made specific averments in the written statement in regard to the plaintiffs having sold certain portion of the land. The suit is at the stage of evidence, cross examination of the plaintiffs had commenced on 14.10.2014 and was completed on 3.11.2014. There are certain admissions which are recorded in the cross examination. The present application was moved after the cross examination of the plaintiffs was completed and came to be filed on 15.11.2014.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and having perused the impugned order which is a reasoned order, I do not feel that there is any perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge rejecting the petitioners' application. The solitary reason given by the petitioners that they had inadvertently failed to give correct instructions, also does not appear to be convincing, notably when the defendant had specifically pleaded about sale of certain portion of the land in question.

¶21

Writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is summarily rejected. No order as to costs.

Shri. Bhau Govind Rohane and Ors. v. Shri. Shankar Kanu Gaikar (Decd) through Lrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Bhau Govind Rohane and Ors. v. Shri. Shankar Kanu Gaikar (Decd) through Lrs.

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

Gurunath Nana Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pravinbhai Gambhichand Shah and Ors. Vs Nenshi v. Khirani and Ors.

Parthasarathi Ojha Vs Lodha Dwellers Pvt.Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Shripad Seva Mandal and Ors. Vs Shri. Ulhas Mahadeo Alave and Ors.

Hirabai Balasaheb Kharade Vs Arun Changdev Lamkane and Ors.

Smt. Sagunabai Shyamrao Suryavanshi Vs Smt. Yamabai Alias Yamunabai Balaku Kadam (Since Decd through Legal Heirs) and Ors.