Allowed

Pralhad Sakharam Shinde v. Narayan Sakharam Shinde and Others

Bombay HC7 Dec 2018WP/730/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the impugned order refusing an amendment to a partition plaint to correct property size errors. It held the errors were typographical and allowed the amendment after imposing costs, which the respondent-advocate deposited.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing amendment is quashed. The plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint within four weeks.

Pralhad Sakharam Shinde Vs Narayan Sakharam Shinde and Others — Partition | Bombay HC (2018)

WP 730.2018

Mrs. Ankush

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

925 WRIT PETITION NO.730 OF 2018

¶6

Pralhad s/o Sakharam Shinde ...Petitioner.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Narayan Sakharam Shinde and others...Respondents..

¶9

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Biyani Sushil M. And P S Pawar
Advocate for Respondents : Mr Kedar Balbhim R. For R No. 4.
Miss A S Jadhav h/f P R Katneshwarkar advocate for respondent nos.
1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9 to 13, 16 to 18.

¶10

...
Coram : N.M. Jamdar, , J.
Dated : 7 December 2018

¶11

ORAL ORDER :-

¶12

1.By this petition, the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the
order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Jafrabad
refusing the application for amendment of the plaint.

¶13

2.Te petitioner-plaintiff, by the proposed amendment have
sought to correct the sizes of the suit property. According to the
petitioner-plaintiff, the sizes of the suit property have been incorrectly
mentioned, which is only a typographical error and will not cause

WP 730.2018

Mrs. Ankush

prejudice to the respondents.

¶18

3. Notice was issued and respondents served. At the time of issuance of notice, the learned single Judge has observed thus :-

¶19

“5.On perusing Exhibit 99, I find that the sizes of
three properties are sought to be changed from 45 R to
65R, from 3 Hector 42 R to 8 Hector 6 R and 3 Hector
19 R to 3 Hector 61 R. Apparently, the plaintiff has not
been cautious while drafting the plaint when the suit was
instituted in 2010. However, it cannot be ignored that
since the suit is for partition and separate possession, the
Petitioner's claim to a portion of these properties would
be defeated. Hardships caused to the contesting
Defendants can be softened by imposing costs.”

¶20

Tis Court has thus found that indulgence needs to be extended in
favour of the petitioner/plaintiff upon imposition of costs.

¶21

4.Te petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.13,000/-
pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 22 January 2018.
Te respondents, who have filed their appearance in this petition
through Advocates, will be entitled to withdraw these costs. Te other
respondents, though served, have not filed their appearance. In the
circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge
J.D. Jafrabad dated 6 November 2017 is quashed and set aside. Te
application filed by the petitioner below exh.99 in RCS No.84 of

¶22

Mrs. Ankush 3 WP 730.2018

¶23

2010 is allowed. Te petitioner will carry out the amendment within
a period of four weeks from the date the writ of this Court reaches the
Civil Court. Te respondents, who have filed their appearance in this
petition through Advocate/s, are entitled to withdraw the amount of
costs that has been deposited in the trial Court.

¶24

6.Writ Petition accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

¶25

( N.M. Jamdar, J. ) ...

Pralhad Sakharam Shinde v. Narayan Sakharam Shinde and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pralhad Sakharam Shinde v. Narayan Sakharam Shinde and Others

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

Laxman Khanderao Jogdand Vs Maha State Road Transport Corporation Abad

Manjit Kaur Harvindersingh Bindra Vs Khirabai Govind Pawar and Another

Pratap Vinodkumar Munot Vs Arohi Pratap Munot

Sahebrao Gajmal Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sahebrao Gajmal Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Usha Dattatray Pachpande Vs Pooja Nitin Waikole and Others