Disposed

Venkatesh Muthalgar Subbiah and Ors. v. Padma Venkatesh Naidu and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2016CRA/16/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an agreed order setting aside an impugned order, allowing applicants liberty to challenge jurisdiction, and dismissing the associated civil application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; liberty granted to amend plaint and file jurisdictional objections; pending applications to be decided within specified timelines.

Venkatesh Muthalgar Subbiah and Ors. Vs Padma… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

skc

¶2

902-cra-16-10

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 678 OF 2015

¶5

Venkatesh M. Subbiah & Ors. .. Applicants vs. Mrs. Padma V. Naidu & Anr. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Vivek B. Pandey for Applicants in CRA and for Respondents in CA.

¶7

Ms Gauri Jadhav with Mr. Tushar Jadhav for Respondent No. 1 in CRA and for Applicants in CA.

¶8

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE: 08 JULY 2016

¶9

P.C . :-

¶10

1] After this matter was argued for some time, the learned counsel for the parties agree that this revision application can be disposed of with the following agreed order:

¶11

(A) Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties, the impugned order dated 11 November 2009 is set aside;

¶12

(B) The respondent nos. 1 and 2 (original plaintiffs before the trial court) are granted liberty to file application seeking amendment of the plaint, including inter alia amendment to the prayer clause in the plaint. Such application to be filed within six weeks from today. The plaintiffs as well as other defendants to

1/2

skc

902-cra-16-10

the suit are at liberty to file their reply within a period of two weeks thereafter. The trial court to dispose of such application as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date the same is lodged;

¶17

(C) If the objection of the applicants herein to valuation of the plaint and consequently jurisdiction of the trial court survives, the applicants are at liberty to file a fresh application questioning the jurisdiction. The trial court to decide such objection as expeditiously as possible and again, within a period of three months from the date if and when such objection is raised.

¶18

(D) All contentions of all parties are left open for consideration by the learned trial court.

¶19

(E) The parties to appear before the trial court on 8 August 2016 at 3 p.m. and produce authenticated copy of this order.

¶20

3] Civil revision application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶21

4] In view of the disposal of the civil revision application, civil application does not survive and even the same is disposed of.

¶22

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶23

Chandka

¶24

2/2

Venkatesh Muthalgar Subbiah and Ors. v. Padma Venkatesh Naidu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesh Muthalgar Subbiah and Ors. v. Padma Venkatesh Naidu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Amity Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunanda Tukaram Rane and Ors.

Yadav Kalusheth Matale and Ors. Vs Sunanda Ashok Jagale and Ors.

Mr. Omprakash Dharmanath Pathak and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pandurang Cindhu Choudhari Vs Kanha Sitaram Patil (Since Decd) through Lrs. and Anr.

Mrs. Padma Venkatesh Naidu (Orig. Respondents) and Ors. Vs Mr. Venkatesh Muthalgar Subbiah (Orig. Petitioners) and Ors.

Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kudtre Vs the Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Ors.