Dismissed

Jakkappa Chandram Susladi v. Kamalabai Namdev Kamale and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2023WP/12664/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court, in a writ petition, refused to interfere with the trial court's 2014 order rejecting an application to amend the plaint. The Court observed that since the trial had commenced by 2023, it was inappropriate to religate parties to the pleading stage, declining to examine the order's merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; interference with the impugned order was declined on procedural grounds.

Jakkappa Chandram Susladi Vs Kamalabai… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1/2

¶2

13wp12664-16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 12664 OF 2016

¶5

Jakkappa Chandram Susladi … Petitioner Versus Kamalabai Namdev Kamale and Ors. … Respondents

¶6

— —

¶7

Mr. Anand Vadgaonkar for the Petitioner.

¶8

— —

¶9

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : August 1, 2023.

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

Heard.

¶12

Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAYASARAM ASARAMMANDAWGAD MANDAWGAD Date: 2023.08.02 16:31:55 +0530

¶13

The challenge in the petition is to the order dated 15^th January, 2014 rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment of the plaint. RCS No.490 of 2011 has been instituted by the Petitioner seeking an order of perpetual injunction not to obstruct the right of way of the Petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that by the proposed amendment, the Petitioner sought to bring on record the subsequent development in the form of obstruction by the defendant despite order has been passed in favour of the Petitioner.

sanjay_mandawgad

2/2

13wp12664-16

The order is of the year 2014 and this Court is informed

¶19

that subsequently the trial has commenced. As such, in the year 2023, the clock cannot be turned back to relegate the parties at the stage of amendment of the pleadings, which would again require fresh evidence to be led.

¶20

Considering the provisions of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in an appeal against the decree any error or illegality of the order can be taken as ground of objection in the appeal.

¶21

In view of the fact that the trial has already commenced and the proposed amendments were rejected on 14^th January, 2014, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. It is made clear that the rejection is only on the ground that the trial have been commenced in the suit of 2011 and this Court has not gone into the validity of the impugned order dated 15^th January, 2014.

¶22

Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶23

sanjay_mandawgad

Jakkappa Chandram Susladi v. Kamalabai Namdev Kamale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jakkappa Chandram Susladi v. Kamalabai Namdev Kamale 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

Dadasaheb Adagonda Patil and Ors. Vs Jagdish Shamrao Kamble and Anr.

Shri. Mokam Singh Kinot Vs Babita Kaur Kinot and Ors.

Dilip Pralhad Malve and Ors. Vs Sudam Damodar Malve (Deceased through Lrs.) Prakash @ Nana Sudam Malve and Ors.

Ravindra Vishnu Patil Vs Shubhangi Ravindra Patil

Shri. Shivaling Appasaheb Handifhod Vs Sou. Sushila Irrappa Baluragi and Ors.

Shankar Waman Kadam (Since Decd.) through Lrs. Vs Shri. Mahipati Ganpat Kadam