Dismissed

Tekchand S/O Gunaji Paunikar v. Mahadeorao S/O Krushnarao Nandanwar

Bombay HC26 Jun 2024WP/1264/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs challenged an order allowing the defendant's application to amend his written statement in a suit for declaration, possession and injunction after trial commenced. Holding the amendment concerned jurisdiction, based on newly acquired knowledge of notified slum status, the High Court declined interference and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Tekchand S/O Gunaji Paunikar vs Mahadeorao S/O Krushnarao… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:6765

¶2

930-cwp-1264-24.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1264 OF 2024

¶4

Tekchand G. Paunikar and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Mahadeorao K. Nandanwar ...Respondent

¶5

Adv. Narendra Jetha for the Petitioner. Adv. S. A. Jaiswal for the Respondent.

¶6

CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 26 JUNE 2024.

¶7

PC:-

¶8

This petition takes exception to the order dated 7.2.2024 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur below Exhibit-74 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1282 of 2018.

¶9

The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. They have filed suit for declaration, possession, permanent and mandatory injunction against the present respondent/defendant.

¶10

By the order impugned, the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent seeking permission to amend Written Statement.

¶11

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial of the suit has commenced and even the evidence of petitioners is over. It is submitted that the application filed by the respondent itself shows that the respondent was aware of

¶13

Dinesh S. Sherla 1/2

¶14

930-cwp-1264-24.doc

¶15

the fact, which he wants to incorporate by the proposed amendment before commencemesnt of trial. It is submitted that no explanation is, however, given in the application as to why the application for amendment was not moved before commencement of trial. It is submitted that the trial Court has thus erred in allowing the application.

¶16

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent was not aware of the fact the suit house is situated in a notified slum area until 10.1.2024. It is submitted that the trial Court has thus rightly allowed the amendment application.

¶17

As the proposed amendment relates to issue of jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order just because the trial of the suit has commenced. Hence, the Petition is dismissed.

¶18

Pending Application(s), if any, are disposed of.

¶19

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

¶20

2/2

¶21

Dinesh S. Sherla

¶22

Signed by: DINESH SHERLA Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 01/07/2024 18:27:15

Tekchand S/O Gunaji Paunikar v. Mahadeorao S/O Krushnarao Nandanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Tekchand S/O Gunaji Paunikar v. Mahadeorao S/O Krushnarao Nandanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri. Manohar Govindra Vyavhare and Others vs Laxman Mahadeo Vadki and Others

Akola,Amravati,Buldhana,Washim Zilla Jangal Kamgar Sah. Sansthan Cha Sangh Marya.,Thr.Pres. and Anr. vs Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amravati and Another

Ayodhyaprasad Arjunlal Jaiswal vs Sujata Hemantsingh Bais and Others

Vandana Shah vs Sanjeev Doshi

Kamlesh S/O Dharamdas Punekar and Another Vs Chandrashekhar S/O Sukhmandas Punekar and Others

Girish Ramchandra Udeg, Thr. P.O.a., Father, Ramachandra Babaji Udeg vs Bhairavi W/O. Girish Udeg, Thr. P.O.a., Sister, Ku. Sangeeta Imane