Dismissed

Shri. Babasaheb Subrao Wavare and Ors. v. Smt. Akkatai Ramchandra Wavare and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Apr 2018WP/4288/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the single judge Court held that amendment of plaint was rightly rejected as trial had commenced and Petitioners failed to show due diligence for raising facts prior to the suit filing. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissing Writ Petition No. 4288 of 2016

Shri. Babasaheb Subrao Wavare and Ors. Vs Smt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

osk 3-wp-4288-2016.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4288 OF 2016

¶4

Babasaheb Subrao Wavare & Ors. V/s.	…	Petitioners
Smt.Akkatai Ramchandra Wavare & Ors.	…	Respondents

¶5

Ms.Tejashree Joshi i/b. Mr.Jitendra H. Oak for the Petitioners.

¶6

CORAM : DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J. DATE : 11^th APRIL, 2018.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

1] Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners.

¶9

2] By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 24^th November 2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Palus, below the application at Exhibit-209 in Regular Civil Suit No.531 of 2008.

¶10

3] The application at Exhibit-209 was filed by the present Petitioners, who are the original Plaintiffs before the trial Court under

¶11

Order-6 Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for amendment

¶12

of the plaint in order to bring on record further particulars. The trial

¶13

1/3

¶14

osk 3-wp-4288-2016.odt

¶15

Court has rejected the said application and hence, the instant Writ Petition.

¶16

4] Admittedly, the trial has commenced and now the matter is before the trial Court for cross-examination of the PetitionersPlaintiffs. Hence, as per the Proviso laid down under Order-6 Rule-17 of C.P.C., once the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence, the party could not have brought these facts to the notice of the Court at an earlier stage, such amendment application cannot be allowed.

¶17

5] Here, in the case, no explanation is offered as to what due diligence if any is exercised by the Petitioners. The entire application is silent about this material aspect. It is not the case that, these facts have occurred subsequent to filing of the suit. All these facts are prior to the filing of the suit. According to the Petitioners, these incidents have occurred in the year 1983-1984, when the work of the well was done. However, there is nothing on record to show why these facts were not pleaded earlier. The impugned order passed by the trial Court goes to show that the affidavit of evidence was filed on 17^th February 2012 and since then, the matter is for cross-examination. In such situation, the trial Court has rightly rejected this application; especially in the light of the contention raised by the Respondents/ 2/3

¶18

osk 3-wp-4288-2016.odt

¶19

Defendants stating that their right to take an alternative plea as a defence is going to be affected on count of this amendment. The impugned order therefore passed by the trial Court being just, legal and correct; no interference is warranted in the said order.

¶20

6] The Writ Petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

¶21

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

¶22

3/3

Shri. Babasaheb Subrao Wavare and Ors. v. Smt. Akkatai Ramchandra Wavare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Babasaheb Subrao Wavare and Ors. v. Smt. Akkatai Ramchandra Wavare 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

Shri. Dattatray Pandari Bhole and Anr. Vs Dattatray Sahebrao Shelke and Ors.

Pune Housing and Area Development Board Vs Netaji Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. through Its Secretary, and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Thr. the Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Janardan Chandar Patil and Ors.

Shri. Dilip Mahadu Raut and Anr. Vs M/S. Edifis Properties Pvt. Ltd. through Its One of the Directors and Anr.

Smt. Vimal Bhaskar Deo and Ors. Vs Pen Municipal Council through the Executive Officer and Ors.

Shri. Kedari Nivrutti Kamble Vs Shri. Shivaji Dattu Kamble and Ors.