Dismissed

M/S. Ashok Electric Company Thr. Its Proprietor v. Ratilal Amichand Gandhi Decd Thru Lhrs

Bombay HC18 Aug 2023WP/10004/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a landlord challenging a Trial Court order that rejected an application for recasting issues. The dispute involved a discrepancy in the amount of arrears of rent alleged. The High Court found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

M/S. Ashok Electric Company Thr. Its Proprietor Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2023)

23-wp-1004-2023.doc

Sonali

SONALI MILIND PATIL

Digitally signed by SONALI MILIND PATIL Date: 2023.08.18 17:53:48 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.10004 OF 2023

¶7

M/s. Ashok Electric Company through its proprietor Ashok Govindrao Kulkarni ...Petitioner Versus Ratilal Amichand Gandhi since deceased through legal heirs Sudarshan Ratilal Gandhi & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni, for the Petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 18^th AUGUST 2023

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for

¶12

the Petitioner.

¶13

By way of this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who is a tenant has impugned order dated 12^th January 2023 passed by the learned 8^th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur below Exhibit-46

¶14

in Regular Civil Suit No.123 of 2018. The said application

1/3

23-wp-1004-2023.doc

Sonali

bearing Exhibit-46 is filed seeking recasting of the issues. The

¶19

issue No.2 which is prayed to be recasted is as under:-

¶20

“2) Does he further prove that, defendant is in arrears of rent amount of Rs.45,250/- demanding from the plaintiff?”

¶21

3. It is the submission of the Petitioner that arrears of rent

¶22

of Rs.45,250/- is mentioned in the issue No.2. However, in paragraph No.5, arrears of rent mentioned as Rs.4,525. The said paragraph No.5 is as follows:-

¶23

ß¼5½ izfroknh ;kaP;k tkxspk efguk baxzth dWysaMj izek.ks izR;sd efgU;kP;k ,d rkj[ksl lq: gksÅu R;kp efgU;krhy v[ksj iw.kZ gksrkslnj tkxsl izfroknhP;k iwohZ gDdnkj dS- xksfoanjko dqyd.khZ gs njegk :-25@& brds HkkMs nsr gksrs- lnj HkkM;kps jdesf’kok; izfroknh gs e-u-ik- ps uksdjhps ‘kkaÜorh dj] ykbZV fcy njegk |ko;kps vkgslnj HkkMs gs vR;ar deh vlwu] tkxk gh O;kikjh fBdk.kh o e/;oLrh loZ lks;hauh ;qDr v’kh vkgs- vktph ifjfLFkrh o Lo:i ikgrk tkxsl ;kiksVh fdrh rjh tkLr jDde HkkMs Eg.kwu feGw ‘kdrsizfroknh ;kauh fn-01@08@2002 iklwu dkghgh jDde oknh ;kauk HkkMsiksVh fnysyh ulwu] izfroknh gk HkkMs Fkdowu Fkdckdhnkj >kysyk vkgs- izfroknhdMwu oknhl vkWxLV 2002 rs 31 tqyS 2017 v[ksj :- 4]525@&¼v{kjh pkj gtkj ikp’ks iapohl QDr½ brdh jDde ;s.ks vkgs- R;kf’kok; lnj tkxsl egkikfydsus osGksosGh dsysys def’kZvy VWDl okf”kZd :-2]000@& ¼v{kjh :i;s nksu gtkj QDr½ izek.ks 15 o”kkZps laiw.kZ VWDl :-30]000@& ¼v{kjh :i;s rhl gtkj Qdr½ izfroknhdMwu oknhl ;s.ks vkgs- R;kf’kok; fot forj.k egkeaMGkps

2/3

23-wp-1004-2023.doc

Sonali

njegkps HkkMs :-45]250@& ¼v{kjh :i;s iapspkGhl gtkj nksu’ks iUukl QDr½ fot fcy izfroknhdMwu ;s.ksckdh vkgs-Þ

¶28

(Emphasis added)

¶29

Thus, it is clear that arrears are not only Rs.4,525/- but more than that.

¶30

The learned Trial Court while dismissing the application has held that as far as issue No.2 is concerned, the Plaintiff has to prove the amount of arrears and how much amount the Plaintiff is entitled to recover will be decided on merits after considering the evidence of both the parties. It is also observed that burden of proving the said issue is on the Plaintiff and amount mentioned in issue No.2 will not affect the Defendant in adducing his evidence or defence. With these reasons, the learned Trial Court has rejected the said application bearing Exhibit-46 seeking recasting of issues.

¶31

There is no illegality in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs.

¶32

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶33

3/3

M/S. Ashok Electric Company Thr. Its Proprietor v. Ratilal Amichand Gandhi Decd Thru Lhrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Ashok Electric Company Thr. Its Proprietor v. Ratilal Amichand Gandhi Decd Thru Lhrs

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

M/S T. Bhimjyani Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Thr. Its CEO Mr. Ashul Bhimjyani) vs Mr. Vineet Sachdeva and Anr.

Vandana Shantaram Chavan (Dec.) Thr. Lrs. K. S. Chavan (Dec.) Thr. Lrs. Manisha K. Chavan Vs Beharam Hemavand Irani and Ors.

Shri.Noormahammad Usman Mulani and Other Vs Husen Ahmed Mulani (Deceased Thru Lrs) and Others

Kolhapur Girhaik Sahakari Mandal Ltd. through Shir. Dhanaji Baburao Salokhe and Anr. Vs Kishorkumar Shailaji Pol Decd. through Lhrs

Pawan Kumar Umapati Pathak Vs Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division Mumbai and Ors.

Shantilal Javerbhai Patel Vs Kala Parsaram Sujan