Writ petition dismissed. The High Court affirmed the refusal to grant relief, holding that the amendment was permissible as the underlying dispute dated 1998 precluded the application of Section 16 of the 2002 Amendment Act regarding due diligence.
None; the writ petition was dismissed and the 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.
Sherla V.
wp.4168.2017_903.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4168 OF 2017
Shri Raichand Brijlal Kunkulol ... Petitioner
Vs.
Ms.Mangala Krishnaji Deshmukh & anr. … Respondents
Mr.R.D. Soni with T.R. Momaiyah for the Petitioner Mr.S.S. Deshmukh for Respondents.
CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: JULY 26, 2017
P.C. :
India challenges the order dated 16.2.2015 passed below exhibit 165 in Dispute No.126 of 1998 by the Cooperative Court No.1, Pune, at Pune, which was confirmed by the Cooperative Appellate court, Bench at Pune, Pune vide order dated 16.11.2015 in Revision Application No.18 of 2015.
Page 1 of 5
wp.4168.2017_903.doc
this amendment is sought at a very late stage and so, it should not be allowed. He further submitted that the dispute of the plaintiff is based on the stand of his status as a tenant co-ownership society. However, by way of amendment, she has changed the stand as tenant co-partnership society, which is not permissible. He has further submitted that the amendment sought of compensation of Rs.25 lakhs and claim of one flat on 8th floor are mutually destructive case of the plaintiff. The learned Counsel has submitted that the plaintiff can either claim the damages or a flat in lieu of the the plot. He has further argued that the amendments
Page 2 of 5
wp.4168.2017_903.doc
which are allowed are going to change the entire situation of the dispute and evidence of the disputant has commenced before the cooperative Court. It is further submitted that no satisfactory answer is given by the respondents/disputant as to why there is a delay of more than 13 to 14 years in filing the amendment application.
Page 3 of 5
wp.4168.2017_903.doc
make the amendments in respect of the flat in view of the undertaking given before the High Court in the Appeal from Order. Thus, he submitted that the petition be dismissed.
and appreciation of the said evidence at the time of trial and
Page 4 of 5
wp.4168.2017_903.doc
whether she is entitled to such alternate reliefs or not is also a matter of evidence and this cannot come in the way of allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code.
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed after a long delay should be allowed in a dispute of 1998.
Whether a change in the stand from tenant co-ownership to tenant co-partnership society bars the amendment of pleadings under the CPC.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shri Raichand Brijlal Kunkulol
Ms. Mangala Krishnaji Deshmukh
Respondent No. 2
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
