This single-judge writ petition challenged an impugned order rejecting an application for amendment of plaint. The court found the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and dismissed the petition summarily with costs.
The petition challenging the impugned order is dismissed summarily with costs.
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.
wp170317.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1703 OF 2017
Nanasaheb s/o Arjun Pawar
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.A.B.Jagtap, advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.R.Yadav (Lonikar), A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 5.
CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE, J. DATE : 08th February, 2017
PER COURT:
2 The legality and correctness of the order dated 09.01.2017 has been questioned in this petition.
3 The learned Civil Judge, while rejecting the application, has observed that no explanation has been given by the petitioner as to why the amendment could not have been made earlier by him especially before trial of the suit commenced.
4 On going through the application dated 07.09.2016 (Exhibit-59), I find that only vague statements are made about non availability of the information leading to filing of amendment application and nothing has been stated as to why this information was not available earlier and when it became available to the petitioner. There is no dispute about the fact that the application,
{2}
wp170317.odt
so filed by the petitioner, would be covered by proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the test of due diligence, as required by this proviso, has not been answered successfully by the petitioner, I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
5 The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed summarily with costs.
S.B.SHUKRE
JUDGE
adb/wp170317
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the amendment application attracts perversity in the absence of due diligence by the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner successfully answered the test of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Whether a writ petition challenging the impugned order deserves to be dismissed summarily.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nanasaheb s/o Arjun Pawar
The State of Maharashtra
S.B. Shukre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
