The petitioner challenged an order allowing a respondent's amendment application without hearing the petitioner, arguing violation of audi alteram partem. The court held no substantive interference was needed as the record showed a reply was filed and clarification was given regarding the right to file an additional written statement.
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.
Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date: 2024.09.19 12:40:10 +0530
72-wp-11998-2024.doc
varsha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11998 OF 2024
Sarika Pankaj Kadam
… Petitioner
vs.
Pankaj Balasaheb Kadam and Anr … Respondent
Mr. Sachin Khandagale, for Petitioner.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 28th AUGUST 2024
ORDER:
Page no. 1 of 2
72-wp-11998-2024.doc
with amendment which is allowed by the impugned order.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with an order allowing amendment without hearing the petitioner, given that the trial has not
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sarika Pankaj Kadam
Pankaj Balasaheb Kadam and Anr
GAURI GODSE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
