Dismissed

Saudagar Mahadeo Gaikwad and Anr. v. Mahesh Fakkadrao Honmane and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Mar 2022WP/1240/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the order rejecting the prayer for amendment of written statement. The bench held that considering the advanced stage of the suit where Plaintiff's evidence was concluded, the Court below was justified in rejecting the amendment prayer.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected and stands dismissed.

Saudagar Mahadeo Gaikwad and Anr. Vs Mahesh Fakkadrao Honmane and… — Partition | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed by IRESH IRESH SIDDHARAM SIDDHARAM MASHAL MASHAL Date: 2022.03.09 14:11:14+0530

¶2

1.1240.21 WP.doc

¶3

ISM

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1240 OF 2021

¶7

SAUDAGAR MAHADEO GAIKWAD AND ANR ….PETITIONERS

¶8

V/s.

¶9

MAHESH FAKKADRAO HONMANE …..RESPONDENTS AND ANR

¶10

Ms. Manisha A. Devkar a/w Mr. Shankar Katkar Advocate for the Petitioners

¶11

Mr. Purushottam G. Chavan Advocate for Respondents

¶12

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: MARCH 8, 2022.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

On instructions, challenge to the order passed below Exh. 88

¶15

thereby rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for appointment of Court

¶16

Commissioner is not pressed by the counsel for the Petitioners.

¶17

Perused the order impugned passed below Exh. 71 whereby

¶18

prayer of Defendant no. 2 for amendment of written statement is rejected vide impugned order dated 10/04/2018.

¶19

1/3

¶20

1.1240.21 WP.doc

¶21

With the assistance, I have perused the pleadings in the Plaint and written statement.

¶22

The contentions of learned counsel for the Petitioner-Defendant are, it is necessary to amplify the stand taken by said Defendant in the written statement so as to appropriately meet the claim made in the Suit for partition and possession. According to her, once the Defendant no. 1 is deleted who happens to be predecessor in title of the present Petitioner, burden has shifted on the Petitioner to demonstrate before the Court to demolish the case of the Respondent-Plaintiff and for the said purpose, according to her, amplification of pleadings is necessary.

¶23

The pleadings which are sought to be inserted by way of amendment to the written statement if appreciated, same appears to be holding the field from the date of initiation of the Suit. Already, foundation for the same existed in the written statement. Trial in the Suit has reached at an advance stage as I am informed that evidence of Plaintiff is already concluded.

¶24

1. In the aforesaid background, considering the issues which are framed at Exh. 23, burden is on the Respondent-Plaintiff to prove the

¶25

2/3

¶26

1.1240.21 WP.doc

¶27

same. In my opinion, Court below was justified in rejecting the prayer

¶28

for amendment. That being so, no case for interference is made out.

¶29

1. Petition fails, stands rejected.

¶30

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

¶31

3/3

Saudagar Mahadeo Gaikwad and Anr. v. Mahesh Fakkadrao Honmane and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saudagar Mahadeo Gaikwad and Anr. v. Mahesh Fakkadrao Honmane and Anr.

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

Kumar Bhimrao Davane Vs Martand Keshav Dabhade Since Dec Thr Legal Heirs and Ors.

Kaikhushroo Alias Kaki Phiroze Noble Since Decd. Thr Legal Heir Vs Subhash Dhanraj Sankla and Ors.

Pushpa Shashikant Shinde Vs Smt. Sarswatibai Pardeshi Since Dec Thr Legal Heirs and Anr.

Tilottama Swapnil Lamkane Vs Swapnil Uttamkumar Lamkane

Naranbhai Ranabhai Ghadia and Ors. Vs Suresh Kantilal Jani

Sapana Vikram Kakade Vs Vikram Suresh Kakade