This High Court,in a writ petition,tempered the rejection of an amendment application filed by defendants in a partition suit. The court held no prejudice was caused and ordered the amendment allowed.
Impugned order set aside; amendment in written statement permitted within two weeks; suit concluded within six months.
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.
1/4 28 WP-8792-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8792 OF 2021
Manoj Shivaji Sawant & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Sambhaji Tayaram Sawant & Ors. .. Respondents …
Mr.Pradeep Thorat for the Petitioners. Mr.Uzair Z. Kazi i/b YMK Legal for the Respondents.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 09th DECEMBER, 2021
P.C:-
M.M.Salgaonkar
2/4 28 WP-8792-21.doc
Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that it is an attempt to delay the proceedings and since the amendment failed to satisfy the test of due diligence, as contemplated by the proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C., it do not deserve consideration. Reliance is placed on the decision in case of Vidyabai Vs. Padmalatha 1
Based on the aforesaid pleadings, share of 4/5 in respect of the properties mentioned in 1A and 1B is sought.
1 LAWS (SC) 2008 12 15)
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/4 28 WP-8792-21.doc
While the evidence affdavit of the plaintiffs was fled, application for amendment vide Exh.87 is taken out, which is strongly opposed on the ground of delay in bringing such an application and on the ground that due diligence is not adopted by the defendants, in seeking amendment to their written statement.
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/4 28 WP-8792-21.doc
traversed by the plaintiffs. Since, the cross-examination of the plaintiff, is yet to commence, I do not see any harm in allowing the amendment in the written statement, which has been declined under the impugned order.
Necessarily, the impugned order is set aside and the defendants are permitted to amend their written statement within a period of two weeks from today.
10. Rule is made absolute in the aforestated terms.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow amendment to the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC despite prior rejection and delay allegations.
Whether the proposed amendments cause prejudice to the plaintiffs and are maintainable.
Whether to set aside the order rejecting the amendment application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vidyabai Vs. PadmalathaReferred¶14
Vidyabai Vs. Padmalatha
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manoj Shivaji Sawant & Anr.
Sambhaji Tayaram Sawant & Ors.
Bharati Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
