Dismissed

Raghunath Aappso Chougule v. Godawari Alias Godabai Subhash Patil and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2021WP/11959/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court rejected the writ petition challenging the Trial Court's order allowing amendment of plaint in a partition suit. The court held that changing the claim from exclusive to joint possession does not alter the nature of the suit and no writ interference is warranted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected and disposed of; amendment order stands maintained.

Raghunath Aappso Chougule Vs Godawari Alias Godabai Subhash Patil… — Partition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

wp 11959.16.doc

¶2

Ingale

¶3

Digitally signed by URMILA URMILAPRAMOD PRAMOD INGALE INGALE Date:2021.12.08 19:34:20 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.11959 OF 2016

¶6

Raghunath Aappso Chougule .. Petitioner vs.

¶7

Godawari @ Godabai Subhash Patil & ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Dilip B. Shinde, for Petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2021

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original defendant no.1. The plaintif had fled the Suit for partition, declaration and injunction. In the Suit as was fled, the stand was taken in the plaint that the plaintif is in exclusive possession of the suit property. An application Exhibit 5 was fled for injunction. The petitioner-defendant no.1 fled written statement and a say. A contention was taken by the petitioner that it is the petitioner who is in exclusive possession of the suit property. The other contention raised was that in previously instituted Suit between the parties, there already was a

¶13

1/3

¶14

wp 11959.16.doc

¶15

compromise decree passed and therefore the present Suit is not maintainable.

¶16

After the rejection of the Exhibit 5 application, even Misc. Civil Appeal against the order refusing temporary injunction is also dismissed. The plaintif then fled an application Exhibit 62 under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application for impleadment of defendants no. 6 to 8 and for amendment was opposed by the defendant no.1. The trial Court allowed the application for amendment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the previously instituted Suit resulted in compromise, it is not now open for the plaintif to have instituted this Suit as the Suit itself is not maintainable. It is further contended that the impleadment of defendants No. 6 to 8 is not at all necessary. It is next contended that it is only after rejection of the application made by plaintif for temporary injunction and resultant dismissal of the Misc. Civil Appeal that the application is fled for amendment. Learned Counsel contended that a new case is sought to be made out, in that now the stand is completely changed from the earlier one. The plaintif had earlier taken a stand that she was in exclusive possession. The plaintif by virtue of the amendment now wants to make out a case for joint possession. In the submission of

¶17

2/3

¶18

wp 11959.16.doc

¶19

learned Counsel this is impermissible and it changes the nature of the Suit.

¶20

I have gone through the impugned order. In the Suit fled by the plaintif, a relief is sought for declaration that decree passed in previously instituted Suit (compromise decree) is not binding on her. Moreover, the defendants no. 6 to 8 were parties to earlier Suit who are now sought to be impleaded and therefore the impleadment is sought, the defendants no. 6 to 8 being necessary parties. In my opinion, the Trial Court has correctly formed an opinion that amendment sought will not change the nature of the Suit. The plaintif had earlier taken a stand that she is in exclusive possession and by way of amendment, she now wants to make out a case for joint possession. Considering the nature of the amendment and that the Suit is for partition, I do not fnd any error in the approach of the Trial Court so as to warrant interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶21

Keeping all contentions open, including the contention that the present Suit is not maintainable in view of earlier decree, the writ petition stands rejected and the same is disposed of.

¶22

3/3

Raghunath Aappso Chougule v. Godawari Alias Godabai Subhash Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath Aappso Chougule v. Godawari Alias Godabai Subhash Patil 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

Mangesh Dattatraya Mavkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vipin Vasant Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Maruti Thorath Vs Hirubai Ganpat Koli and Ors.

Shri. Balkrishna Kana Naik Vs Shri. Jagdish M. Sharma and Ors.

Ajinkya Anant Ghorpade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Nandkumar Mahadev Patil Vs Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Anr.