The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an amendment to a written statement in a partition suit. The Court held that no warrant for Article 227 jurisdiction existed as the proposed amendment sought to fill lacunas late in the trial.
None. The writ petition filed under Article 227 was dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5223 OF 2017 (Gayabai Ganpati Sarode Vs.Datta Ananda Sarode)
Mr.G.L.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner.
( CORAM : M.S.Sanklecha, J.)
DATE : 24/04/2017
PER COURT :
khs/APR.2017/5223
2
records the fact that the application for amendment to written statement did not plead that the suit was bad for non- joinder of the properties. Further the impugned order records that the petitioner did not give any reason for not taking up the proposed defence in her pleadings and only mentions that being illiterate and old lady, she inadvertently failed to mention the defence of non-joinder of properties in her written statement.
( M.S.Sanklecha, J.)
khs/APR.2017/5223
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the Civil Court's order rejecting an application to amend a written statement at the fag end of the trial.
Whether the proposed amendment to allege bad suit for non-joinder of properties was due to lack of due diligence.
Whether the impugned order correctly applied the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gayabai Ganpati Sarode
Datta Ananda Sarode
M.S.Sanklecha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
