This single-judge petition dismissed the challenge to the rejection of a plaint amendment application filed seven years after the existence of the disputed construction was known, holding the filing was a deliberate delay.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
925 WRIT PETITION NO.12160 OF 2022
KAMALBAI BABASAHEB DONGRE
VERSUS
ABHIMAN BABURAO GHOLAP AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Kishor J. Ghute Patil
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 05-12-2022
PER COURT :
.By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order
dated 07.01.2022 passed by 3rd Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Beed
below Exh.86 in Regular Civil Suit No.123 of 2013 rejecting his
application for amendment. Admittedly the trial in the suit has
commenced. Defendant nos.2 and 3 have filed written-statement on
11.03.2013 specifically contending that they had erected fencing on
all four sides of the suit property and have constructed one tin sheet
shed room in which they have been residing since the year 1997.
This position was made known to petitioner - plaintiff in the year
2013 itself. However after the evidence in the suit commenced, an
application was filed on 07.10.2020 contending that plaintiff noticed
erection of fencing and construction of room 2 - 3 months before
filing of the amendment application.
2
2.This leaves no matter of doubt that the only purpose for
filing amendment application was to delay the trial of the suit.
Despite being aware of the position that fencing was erected and
room was constructed in the year 2013 itself, plaintiff – petitioner
failed to take any steps and filed application for amendment after
lapse of 7 years. In such circumstances, the trial Court has correctly
rejected petitioner’s application for amendment. Petition is devoid of
merits and the same is dismissed without any orders as to costs.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. )
GGP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court correctly rejected the petitioner's application for amendment of plaint filed after a lapse of seven years.
Whether the petition challenging the rejection of the amendment application is devoid of merits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KAMALBAI BABASAHEB DONGRE
ABHIMAN BABURAO GHOLAP AND OTHERS
SANDEEP V. MARNE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court