Dismissed

Girish Laxman Ubale v. 1 Chainmal Pannalal Kothari Died Thr Lrs 1A Rupesh Chainmal Othari and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2018WP/8619/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed challenging an order rejecting an application requesting consideration of subsequent developments in a rent suit and permission to adduce evidence. Court found no substance in the petitioner's submission and rejected the plea.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected as the impugned order rejecting the application to adduce evidence was found to be in consonance with judicial principles.

Girish Laxman Ubale Vs 1 Chainmal Pannalal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 WP 8619/2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8619 of 2018

¶4

Girish Laxman Ubale Shnecrai Tours and Travels, age 46 years occupation business R/o Shree Wheels Car Accessories, Chetan Trade Centre, Jalna road, Aurangabad Taluka and District Aurangabad. ...Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Chainmal Pannalal Kothari (died) through legal representatives:

¶7

1/A. Rupesh S/o Chainmal Kothari, age 57 years occupation business

¶8

1/B. Rajesh S/o Chainmal Kothari, age 55 years occupation business

¶9

Both R/o Khushalnagar, Jalna road, Aurangabad Taluka and District Aurangabad.

¶10

The United Electro Diesel Owner Vasudeo S/o Vishwanath Jadhav, 90, Shivaji Co-operative Housing Society, Senapati Bapat Marg, Pune. ...Respondents

¶11

Mr P.S. Mehata, Advocate for petitioner.

¶12

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 1^st August, 2018

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

Petitioner had preferred application exhibit No. 204 in

¶15

rent suit beating No. 2 of 2007 pending before 8^th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, on the ground that there has been

¶16

2 WP 8619/2018

¶17

subsequent development under which plaintiff had required adjacent premises and has started running business in the same and this aspect will be required to be considered and under the circumstances it becomes necessary for defendant to adduce evidence.

¶18

Application had been opposed by the plaintiff. The court had considered that without there being any material support to the contention under application, it would not be proper to consider the request. Under the circumstances, application has been rejected.

¶19

The reason, which underwent in making impugned order, does not appear to be without any substance and is in consonance with judicial principles.

¶20

In the circumstances, it is difficult to accede to request made in the writ petition. Writ petition is, thus, rejected.

¶21

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE.

¶22

Madkar

Girish Laxman Ubale v. 1 Chainmal Pannalal Kothari Died Thr Lrs 1A Rupesh Chainmal Othari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Laxman Ubale v. 1 Chainmal Pannalal Kothari Died Thr Lrs 1A Rupesh Chainmal Othari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Kashinath Chaudhari Vs Kadu Baliram Mahajan

Surekhabai Prakash Patil Vs Yuvraj Chudaman Badgujar and Others

Prakash Sitaram Patil Vs Yuvraj Chudaman Badgujar and Others

Khudratulla Vajir Beg Vs Mohammad Jafar Kha Usman Kha and Others

Prakash Pandurang Palodkar Vs Subhadrabai Balaji Kadam and Others

Arjun Fakira Bari Vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Op Soc. Nashik and Ors.