The single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging the Trial Court's order rejecting an application to amend the written statement. The court declined to interfere but advised the petitioner to file a fresh application.
Petition rejected with no order as to costs.
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.
Pradnya Bhogale 1 902 wp 9478-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9478 OF 2019
Priti Tushar Deshpande … Petitioner
Vs.
Tushar Kishor Deshpande… Respondent
Mr. Prabhanjan Gujar for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashraf Kapoor I/b. Mohammed Zain Khan for the Respondent.
CORAM: M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2019.
P. C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent says that he will
file his Vakalatnama for the respondent. He is permitted to file his
Vakalatnama during the course of the day.
3.The petitioner wife is challenging the order dated
20.5.2019 passed below Exhibit 15 in P.A. No.748 of 2017
rejecting the application made for amending the written
statement. The amendment is rejected by the Trial Court on the
ground that in the proposed amendment the wife made vague and
1 of 3
Pradnya Bhogale 2 902 wp 9478-19.doc
ambiguous allegations. She has not given specific dates and
details of the instances mentioned therein. In the opinion of the
learned Trial Judge the proposed amendments are not necessary
for determining the questions of real controversy between the
parties.
4.Learned counsel for the respondent states that even
the affidavit of evidence of the husband is filed on 18.11.2018.
In this view of the matter, I do not proposed to interfere with the
order passed. However, if the petitioner makes a fresh application
specifying proper details, the Trial Court will consider the same on
its own merits without being influenced by the rejection of the
application Exhibit 50.
5.It is the contention of learned counsel for the husband
that the application is filed by the wife only with a view to
protract the litigation. Learned counsel for the wife states that she
would co-operate with the Trial Court in the expeditious disposal
of the suit and the apprehension of the respondent-husband is
misconceived.
2 of 3
Pradnya Bhogale 3 902 wp 9478-19.doc
6. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court is requested
to expedite the suit.
7. The petition is rejected with no order as to costs.
( M. S. KARNIK, J. )
3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's rejection of the husband's application to amend the written statement.
whether the petitioner must make a fresh application with specific details to seek amendment of the written statement.
Priti Tushar Deshpande
Tushar Kishor Deshpande
M. S. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court