This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order that maintained a civil suit for partition and preemption against limitation objections.
Writ petition disposed of; impugned order confirmed.
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.
p506-wp-8002-17.doc
Trupti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8002 OF 2017
Shri Surendra Shashikumar Shete
...Petitioner
Versus
Sou.Radha @ Indu Gajanan Lohar & Ors.
...Respondents
Mr.Dilip Bodake for the Petitioner.
CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: JULY 27, 2017
P.C. :
Page 1 of 2
p506-wp-8002-17.doc
Trupti
original defendant no. 10, has raised the issue by filing the application below Exhibit 108 that before filing the Suit, the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years and therefore, the plaintiffs suit deserves to be rejected with cost. He has further submitted that the issue of limitation and also the issue of preemption of the Suit is not maintainable. However, the learned Judge has erroneously rejected the said application. The learned Judge ought to have considered the written statement. In the written statement, defendant no.10 has taken a stand that the issues can be added and deleted at any stage of the trial Court.
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge rejecting the application on limitation and preemption was erroneous.
Surendra Shashikumar Shete
Radha @ Indu Gajanan Lohar
Others
Mridula Bhatkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
