Writ petition filed by original defendants challenging an order of the Civil Judge allowing plaintiffs to amend plaint in a regular suit. The High Court dismissed the plea to exercise discretion under Article 226.
Writ petition dismissed; rule discharged.
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.
WP-9719.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 9719 OF 2015
3/A Shantilal s/o Maruti Mule, Age 30 years, occup. Agril.
3/B Sanjay s/o Maruti Mule, Age 25 years, occup. Agril.
3/C Anjanabai w/o Maruti Mule, Age 52 years, occup. Agril.
2
WP-9719.15
[Petitioner No. 5 to 9 through G.P.A. holder of Sitaram Laxman Gund, Age 48 years, occup. Agri., r/o Gundewadi (Kuldharan) Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar)
Versus
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2015
ORAL JUDGMENT:
3 WP-9719.15
plaintiffs seeking amendments to the plaint in regular civil suit no. 6 of 2012 has been allowed.
WP-9719.15
4
court would not be liable to be interfered with. The legal position is also that the merits of the amendments may not be considered at this stage and it is open for defendants to take up all such defences as are available against the amendments sought.
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
pnd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order allowing amendment to plaint after issue framing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madhukar s/o Nivruti Mule ors.
Bhausaheb s/o Pandharinath Mule
Saraswati w/o Bhausaheb Mule
Sunil P. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
