Dismissed

The Municipal Commissioner, Sangli , Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Corporation v. Ganapati Panchayatan Sansthan and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Aug 2023WP/248/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Trial Court's order allowing an amendment to a plaint to include the City Survey Number of the property, holding that the amendment was necessary for effective adjudication and did not change the nature of the suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it failed to meet the requirements for interference with the Trial Court's order allowing the amendment.

The Municipal Commissioner, Sangli , Miraj… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

12 WP-248-2018.doc

¶2

Harish

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.248 OF 2018

¶5

The Municipal Commissioner, Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Corporation, Sangli.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ganapati Panchayatan Sansthan & Anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Mr. G. H. Keluskar for the Petitioner.

¶11

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : AUGUST 17, 2023

¶12

P. C. :

¶13

Heard,

¶14

The challenge in the Petition is to the order dated 11^th December, 2017 allowing the Respondent-Plaintiff’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to incorporate the City Survey Number of the suit property.

¶15

The pplication for amendment contends that at the time of filing of the suit the suit property was unnumbered and was not identified in the City Survey record. However, during the course of the proceeding the suit property has been numbered as City Survey No. 344. The Trial Court has

¶16

¶17

12 WP-248-2018.doc

¶18

allowed the application for amendment as by the proposed amendment the Respondents only wanted to describe the suit property more particularly and as such, the same was necessary for the effective adjudication of the issue in dispute.

¶19

Considering that by the proposed amendment there is no change in the nature of the suit or introduction of any fresh cause of action and by the proposed amendment what was sought was only to incorporate a correct description of the suit property which was numbered during the course of the proceeding, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Trial Court allowing the amendment. It is also required to be noted that amendments are to be liberally allowed which are necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy in dispute. In the present case, the Plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of possession from the Defendant No. 1 and as such, by the proposed amendment only better particulars of the suit property was sought to be provided which cannot be faulted with. Needless to clarify that the provisions of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permit any error or irregularity in passing of any order to be taken as a ground of appeal.

¶20

In that view of the matter the Petition fails and stands dismissed.

¶21

(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. )

¶22

The Municipal Commissioner, Sangli , Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Corporation v. Ganapati Panchayatan Sansthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Municipal Commissioner, Sangli , Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Corporation v. Ganapati Panchayatan Sansthan and Anr.

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

Kondaji Daga Bagul Vs Sunitabai Sadashiv Mali and Ors.

Kachru Sankar Gavare and Anr. Vs Lahanu Manga Gandal Since Decd. Thr Lrs and Anr.

M/S. Sagar Ceremics through Shri. Sanjay Raghunath Kshirsagar Vs Bahai Vishwadharma Centre, through Azij Khodad Sohali

Dhanottam Vasant Lonkar, Trustees of Omkareshwar Mahadeo Devasthan Vs Gangadhar Vasant Lonkar and Ors.

Dr. Hemant Anant Patil Vs Dr. Hemlata Madhav Joshi and Ors.

Bhanudas Laxman Bhosle Vs Mustafa Nijam Mulani and Ors.