Dismissed

Dagdu Chandrrao Suryawanshi v. Mahamod Nurulla Chaudhari and Others

Bombay HC21 Apr 2017WP/5064/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order rejecting an application to amend the plaint, the single judge Court held that no interference was warranted as the lower court correctly found the plaintiff failed to demonstrate lack of due diligence for earlier amendment.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the rejection of the amendment application is dismissed.

Dagdu Chandrrao Suryawanshi Vs Mahamod Nurulla… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

7_WP506417.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5064 OF 2017

¶4

Dagdu Chandrrao Suryawanshi

¶5

..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Mahamod Nurulla Chaudhari and Others ..RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.S. Yenegure, Advocate for respondents.

¶9

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA, J. DATED : 21^st APRIL, 2017

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

Mr. Yenegure, learned Counsel appears for the respondents and undertakes to file his vakalatnama by 24^th April, 2017.

¶12

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 09^th January, 2017 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Osmanabad.

¶13

By the impugned order, the petitioner’s application for

¶14

amendment of the plaint was rejected. The impugned order records the fact that proposed application for making amendment to the plaint was sought after commencement of the Trial. Further, the impugned order records the

¶15

1 / 2

¶16

7_WP506417.odt

¶17

fact that the plaintiff has not shown that he could not have applied for amendment earlier even after exercising of due diligence. It also records the fact that “by way of amendment plaintiff wants to disown the contentions raised by defendants in their W.S.”.

¶18

Mr. Nagargoje, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that amendment to the pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings if necessary to bring out real issue in dispute. In support, he relies on the decision of this Court in Rajaram Naik Vs. State of Goa and Others reported in 2016 (1) Mh.L.J. 770 . However, this Court in Rajaram Naik (supra) has categorically stated that the amendment would be allowed only when the Court comes to the conclusion that the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial inspite of due diligence on his part. In the present facts, the finding recorded in the impugned order is that the plaintiff has not shown that he could not have applied for amendment earlier inspite of due diligence.

¶19

In the above view, the impugned order passed does not warrant interference in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶20

( M.S. SANKLECHA, J. )

¶21

SSD

¶22

2 / 2

Dagdu Chandrrao Suryawanshi v. Mahamod Nurulla Chaudhari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dagdu Chandrrao Suryawanshi v. Mahamod Nurulla Chaudhari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashoklal Chunilal Chorbele and Others Vs Sachin Subhashlal Gandhi and Others

Mudrika Ranjana Sanjay Abuj Vs Sanjay Uttaramrao Abuj

Web Galaxy through Its Proprietor Pratap Shankarrao Supekar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mukteshwar Upsa Jal Sinchan Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Aurangabad Though Its Secretary v v Wagh Vs the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Now Maharashtra State Electricity Distri Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Sangita Rajesh More Vs Rajesh Panditrao More

Ashoklal Chunilal Chorbele and Others Vs Sachin Subhashlal Gandhi and Others