Dismissed

Khare Tarkunde Sancheti Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Thr Managing Director Manohar Ramchandra Tarkunde v. Balaji Hiraman Barse Since Deceased through Lrs Pandminibai Balaji Barse and Another

Bombay HC18 Jul 2023WP/8507/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the allowance of an amendment to the written statement in a specific performance suit. The High Court found no fault or illegality in the Trial Court's order and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order confirmed.

What the court decided

Khare Tarkunde Sancheti Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Thr… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

908-WP-8507-23

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8507 OF 2023

¶5

Khare Tarkunde Sancheti Construction Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director Manohar Ramchandra Tarkunde Through its Power of Attorney Holder Gangaprasad Dhondibarao Kakade

¶6

.... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Balaji S/o Hiraman Barse Since Deceased through is L.Rs. Padminibai W/o Balaji Barse and others .... Respondents

¶9

Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for the Petitioner

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, below Exhibit-129 in Special Civil Suit No.38 of 2013, thereby allowing the application filed by original defendant Nos.1/4 and 1/5, for amendment in the written statement.

¶12

The petitioner/plaintiff filed suit through power of attorney holder of the company for specific performance of contract. The suit was opposed by the defendants by filing written statement. The plaintiff’s evidence was recorded, and

1 of 3

908-WP-8507-23

the evidence affidavit of of defendant No.1/5 is filed on 10/11/2022. Thereafter, Application exhibit-129 is filed seeking amendment in the written statement, by way of amendment. It is claimed that the power of attorney holder of the company has concealed facts regarding registration and existence of the company. The plaintiff company was incorporated on 23.06.2004, however, within a few months from its incorporation, the company was dissolved. This fact came to the knowledge of the defendants in the month of November, 2022, hence, they wanted to incorporate it in their written statement. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court has allowed the application. Hence, the present petition.

¶17

Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. Perused the writ petition memo, annexures thereto, and the impugned order.

¶18

The application is allowed by the Trial Court by observing that the defendants are trying to bring before the Court, the fact about existence of the plaintiff company. In such situation, amendment is necessary for deciding the dispute effectively and finally. Despite due diligence, the defendants were not aware about the facts mentioned in the

2 of 3

908-WP-8507-23

proposed amendment. Hence, the application is allowed by the Trial Court.

¶23

The impugned order is passed by the Trial Court in consonance with the settled legal position. Since the amendment would enable the Trial Court to decide the dispute between the parties effectively, no fault can be found in the order impugned in the present petition. There is no illegality or perversity in the order impugned in the present petition. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶24

[ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE

¶25

S.P. Rane

¶26

3 of 3

Khare Tarkunde Sancheti Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Thr Managing Director Manohar Ramchandra Tarkunde v. Balaji Hiraman Barse Since Deceased through Lrs Pandminibai Balaji Barse and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Khare Tarkunde Sancheti Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Thr Managing Director Manohar Ramchandra Tarkunde v. Balaji Hiraman Barse Since Deceased through Lrs Pandminibai Balaji Barse and Another

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

The Superintending Engineer Nanded Patbandhare Mandal and Others Vs Ramdas Govind Bhand

Rukhminibai Janardan Rahinj and Another Vs Vitthal Balwant Bhavar and Others

Vinod Panjabrao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Popat Gawali Since Deceased Hence Thr Lrs Smt. Sushilabai Ramesh Gawali and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Collector Dhule Alias the Competent Authority and Others

Waman Fakira Burud Vs Ramesh Maruti Dhapse and Others

Maroti Baburao Biradar and Another Vs Kalavati Ramrao Kaname and Others