Quashed

Mr. Subhash Balasaheb Patil v. Mrs. Vimal Subhash Patil

Bombay HC13 Sept 2023WP/1411/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Trial Court's order permitting an amendment of plaint alleging fraud in a compromise decree. The High Court quashed the order, observing the application was premature before the affidavit stage, and allowed it instead.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of the application below Exhibit 15 in Regular Civil Suit No.445 of 2019 pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malshiras.

Mr. Subhash Balasaheb Patil Vs Mrs. Vimal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

28-wp-1411-2021.doc

¶2

Digitally signedby SHABNOORAYUB PATHAN Date: 2023.09.1410:45:30 +0530

¶3

SA Pathan

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1411 OF 2021

¶6

SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN

¶7

Subhash Balasaheb Patil … Petitioner V/s. Vimal Subhash Patil … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Vishwanath S Talkute a/w Mr. Graham Francis, for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Tushar Sonawane i/by Mr. Prashant S Hagare, for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2023

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 8 January 2020 passed by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.445 of 2019 seeking declaration of ownership and consequential injunction restraining defendant from creating third party rights.

¶13

In the said suit before filing of examination-in-chief, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of plaint contending that the decree passed in H.M.P. No.46 of 2008 and Regular Civil Suit No.276 of 2013 has been obtained by practicing fraud on the Court and collusion.

¶14

The said application is rejected by the Trial Court holding that the plaintiff has been taken compromise decree by playing

28-wp-1411-2021.doc

fraud on the Court.

On perusal of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff refers to the compromise decree; however, the plaintiff has not specifically admitted that the compromise decree is validly passed. Therefore, challenge to compromise decree on the ground of collusion or fraud could not have been termed as inconsistent. Considering the facts, the application was filed before filing of affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the application. Hence, following order is passed:

¶19

a) The impugned order dated 8 January 2020 in Regular Civil Suit No.445 of 2019 is quashed and set aside.

¶20

b) The application below Exhibit 15 in Regular Civil Suit No.445 of 2019 pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malshiras is allowed.

¶21

The respondent is on liberty to file additional written statement to the amended plaint.

¶22

All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶23

The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶24

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶25

Mr. Subhash Balasaheb Patil v. Mrs. Vimal Subhash Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Subhash Balasaheb Patil v. Mrs. Vimal Subhash Patil

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

Mr. Salim Saddrudin Khoja through P.O.A. Miss Sheetal Kishanchand Vs Ajay Bipinchandra Jhaveri and Ors.

Raosaheb Bhagwan More Vs Balaso Bhagwan More

Hari Ramchandra Thakur Vs Deepak Shahadev Pawaskar and Ors.

Shri. Bapu Mahadu Magar and Ors. Vs Manoj Builders and Ors.

Zenith Metaplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs Brandz Storm India Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Pravin Shivajirao Borole Vs Mrs. Pratiksha Pravin Borole