Dismissed

Shri. Narayan Bhagwan Rawool v. Ku. Reshma Govind Rawool through P.O.A. Sou. Kamini C. Rawool and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2018WP/3338/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a High Court writ petition dismissing trial Court's rejection of his review application. The petition failed as the trial Court exercised discretion by allowing amendment after costs were paid by respondents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stands dismissed.

Shri. Narayan Bhagwan Rawool Vs Ku. Reshma… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

vks

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3338 OF 2016

¶4

Narayan Rawool … Petitioner

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Reshma Govind Rawool Through P.O.A., Kamini Rawool and ors … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Vinaay Kumar Omprakash Dubey, for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Warekar i/by Warekar and Warekar, for the Respondent No.4

¶8

CORAM : DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

¶9

DATE : 22^nd MARCH, 2018.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶12

2] By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.10.2015,

¶13

passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Vengurla, below application at Exh.119 in R.C.S. NO.70 of 2006.

¶14

3] Application at Exh. 119 was filed by the present petitioner, who is one of the legal heirs of deceased defendant before the trial

¶15

1/3

¶16

904 WP 3338 OF 2016.odt

¶17

Court, for review of the order passed below Exh.106.

¶18

4] Application at Exh.106 was filed by respondents for amendment in the plaint. The said application was allowed by the trial Court, vide its order dated 15.2.2012, directing the respondents to pay costs of Rs.3,000/- to the present petitioner before next date. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that respondents had not paid these costs of Rs.3,000/- before the next date which was 1^st March, 2013 and despite that the trial Court has allowed the amendment to be carried out. Hence the petitioner had filed Application for review of the said order, which the trial Court has rejected by the impugned order.

¶19

5] It is brought on record that the respondent has paid costs of Rs.3,000/-, immediately on 15.3.2013 which was the next date after 1^st March,2013. It was specifically stated therein that the costs remained to be paid due to inadvertence. The trial Court has allowed the said application, in the interest of justice.

¶20

6] Thus, once the trial Court has exercised its discretion and allowed the costs to be deposited even after the stipulated period, therefore, there is no substance raised in the grievance against the said order. The trial Court has exercised its discretion properly. It is also not the case that the order dated 15.02.2012, allowing application for amendment was subject to payment of cost, as a

¶21

2/3

¶22

904 WP 3338 OF 2016.odt

¶23

condition precedent. In such situation, no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, rejecting petitioner's

¶24

application for review.

¶25

7] The writ petition, therefore, being without merit, stands

¶26

dismissed.

¶27

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

¶28

3/3

Shri. Narayan Bhagwan Rawool v. Ku. Reshma Govind Rawool through P.O.A. Sou. Kamini C. Rawool and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Narayan Bhagwan Rawool v. Ku. Reshma Govind Rawool through P.O.A. Sou. Kamini C. Rawool and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnawatar Satyanarayan Agarwal and Ors. Vs Sitaram Chiranjilal Agarwal and Ors.

Krishnawatar Satyanarayan Agarwal and Ors. Vs Sitaram Chiranjilal Agarwal and Ors.

Arvind Jeram Kotecha Vs Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha

Sou. Kishori Kishor Bhandari Vs Suman Baburao Hatkar

Mr. Ashok Rajaram Raul Vs Mr. Mandar Pramod Vichare and Ors.

Narayan Govind Phate Vs Hari Narayan Kumbhar (Since Decd.) through Lrs. and Anr.