Dismissed

Chabildas Kalu Chaudhari Bahhuddesiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary v. the Municipal Council Bhusawal through Its Chief Executive Officer

Bombay HC15 Apr 2024WP/2048/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff sought amendment of a suit over a rental tax notice to add a prayer for mandatory injunction at the final stage. The trial court refused, holding the amendment would alter the suit's nature. The High Court found no error and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chabildas Kalu Chaudhari Bahhuddesiya Shikshan Prasarak… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:7991

¶2

WP 2048/24

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

5 WRIT PETITION NO. 2048 OF 2024

¶6

Chabildas Kalu Chaudhari Bahhuddesiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Through Its Secretary VERSUS

¶7

The Municipal Council Bhusawal Through Its Chief Executive Officer

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. N. V. Dhake Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. B.S. Deshmukh

¶9

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Dated : April 15, 2024

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

By the present writ petition, the petitioner/original plaintiff is challenging the order dated 26.10.2023 below Exh. 77 in Regular Civil Suit No. 54/2016 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhusaval. The application was filed by the plaintiff at the flag end of the suit for amendment of the suit for incorporating the prayer of mandatory injunction. The prayer is as under :-

¶13

“5½ oknhph fouarh %&

¶14

oknhauk nkok dye e/;s [kkyhy nq:Lrhph ijokuxh ns.;kr ;koh12bZ½ HkqlkoG ;sFkhy l- ua- 196@2c@ 1rs7 e/khy moZjhr tehu izfroknhauh oknhl ijr dj.;kpk R;kauk vkns’k dj.;kr ;kok o r’kk vFkkZpk eWUMsVjh eukbZ gqdwe izfroknh ;kaps fo:/n dj.;kr ;kok-”

¶15

Originally suit was filed challenging the rental tax notice dated 4.1.2016 of Rs.36,407/- issued by the Municipal Corporation. In response to the said suit, the Municipal Corporation submitted its written statement and has submitted that the notice was erroneously issued and the possession of

¶16

WP 2048/24

¶17

¶18

the property was already taken long back in the year 2016 and the same has been allotted to the original owner of the property in terms of directions of the court confirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in different proceedings. During the pendency of the suit, at the flag end, the petitioner has moved the above application for amendment.

¶19

The trial Court held that plaintiff want to add prayer of mandatory injunction in the plaint, only to prolong the matter. So also the trial Court held that the defendant had filed copy of order mentioned by the plaintiff on 18.11.2021 and the defendant has also not mentioned this fact and he has concealed the said facts from the plaintiff and the matter is at the final arguments. The prayer is made in the application is at para 12E which is quoted above wherein the direction is sought to the Municipal Corporation to return the excess land taken. The original suit was simplicitor for quashing of tax notice and the prayer now made would completely alter the nature of suit at the flag end and such, prayer cannot be granted. The plaintiff can take recourse to appropriate remedies as are available in law, if such remedy is available. In view of the same, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by petitioner/plaintiff.

¶20

I do not see any error in the order passed by the Trial Court. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate recourse if available in law.

¶21

( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )

¶22

ssc/

Chabildas Kalu Chaudhari Bahhuddesiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary v. the Municipal Council Bhusawal through Its Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chabildas Kalu Chaudhari Bahhuddesiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary v. the Municipal Council Bhusawal through Its Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhausaheb Kisan Naikwadi and Others Vs Madhukar Laxmanrao Nawale and Others

Bhausaheb Kisan Naikwadi and Others Vs Madhukar Laxmanrao Nawale and Others

Indubai Haribhau Berad and Others Vs Sunil Ramesh Berad and Another

Ashutosh Sadanand Karmarkar vs Anushree Rajendra Kulkarni

Mohammad Hamidoddin Mohammad Muniruddin Vs Mohid Khan Mohammad Khan Pathan and Another

Shivaji Nivrutti Kamble and Another Vs Sushilabai Vinayak Bhandare