Writ petition challenging Mamlatdar and SDO orders in a Section 5 Mamlatdar's Courts Act application for non-disclosure of the nature of obstruction. The court held the duty to cure plaint deficiencies under Section 7 lies with the Mamlatdar, not the plaintiff, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
907-WP-10120-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL
Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.07.24 17:01:58 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 10120 OF 2024
Shrishail Darappa Karle And Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Sidgonda Ramgonda Biradar And Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Umesh H. Pawar, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Hamid Mulla, A.G.P. for the Respondent – State.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. DATE : 24th JULY, 2024
P.C.:
1 of 2
VAI
907-WP-10120-2024.doc
as indicated therein, to examine the plaintiff and ascertain from him such of the particulars as specified in Section 7 of M.M. Act, as are not clearly and correctly stated in the plaint and reduce the examination to writing in the form of endorsement on or annexure to the plaint, which shall there upon be deemed to be part of the claim.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
2 of 2
VAI
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act failing to disclose the nature of obstruction could sustain concurrent orders against the defendants.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Shrishail Darappa Karle And Ors.
Sidgonda Ramgonda Biradar And Ors.
AVINASH G. GHAROTE
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
