Dismissed

Jagannath Narayan Bhutkar v. Narayan Haribhau Bhutkar and Others

Bombay HC18 Nov 2024WP/2802/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order allowing amendment to defendant's written statement in a partition suit, the High Court upheld the amendment, finding it relevant to the defense of prior partition. The court dismissed the writ, allowing the trial to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Defendant permitted to lead evidence if required.

Jagannath Narayan Bhutkar Vs Narayan Haribhau Bhutkar and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:27196

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

35 WRIT PETITION NO. 2802 OF 2019

¶4

JAGANNATH NARAYAN BHUTKAR VERSUS NARAYAN HARIBHAU BHUTKAR AND OTHERS

¶5

Mr. Z. M. Pathan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶6

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 18^th NOVEMBER, 2024

¶7

PER COURT :-

¶8

Heard.

¶9

The petitioner is original plaintiff being aggrieved by the order passed below Exhibit 142 in R.C.S. No. 405/2001 whereby the application filed by defendant nos. 3, 7 and 8 for amendment of Writ Petition under Rule VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) came to be allowed.

¶10

The petitioner has filed suit for seeking partition of the suit property against the defendants. It is his claim that the suit properties are ancestral joint family properties and that there is no previous partition of the same. With these pleadings petitioner seeks partition and separate share in the suit properties.

¶11

1 of 4

¶12

35.wp2802.19.odt

¶13

Defendant nos. 3, 7 and 8 appeared and filed written statement taking specific plea about the suit property being partition prior to the filing of the suit property of the plaintiff. The suit proceeded further. Plaintiff has examined himself and other witnesses are yet to be examined. At this stage application Exhibit 142 came to be filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment to the written statement. This application is allowed. Hence, this petition.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment sought to the written statement is belated and without any reason/justification for not carrying out the same before commencement of trial. It is his further submission that permitting the amendment in respect of changing the word “West to North” will change the nature of suit property. It is his submission that the evidence of plaintiff is over and cross-examined by the defendants. In such circumstances there was no justification for permitting the amendment to the written statement.

¶15

Learned counsel for the contesting respondent supported the impugned order.

¶16

There cannot be any dispute made with regard to the fact that it is just and necessary for the defendant to provide reason for not amending the pleadings before commencement of trial in view of

¶17

2 of 4

¶18

35.wp2802.19.odt

¶19

provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Perusal of application Exhibit 142 indicates that the clause no. B sought to be amended is pursuant to the subsequent event occurred after filing of the written statement. Thus, there would not be any impediment in permitting the same as the same is found to be relevant for the decision of the case.

¶20

In so far as the amendment as stated in clause no. A is concerned, the defendant is seeking to be placed the word “North from West”. Though it is sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this amendment would change the nature of the suit property and the respective possession of the parties over the same, it is pertinent to note that the suit is for partition. Petition / Plaintiff has come out with a specific case that there is no partition of the suit property and hence he is seeking partition and separate possession thereof. As against this the contesting respondents have pleaded specific case of previous partition. In such circumstances, if the plaintiff fails to substantiate his case, the result of the suit could be dismissal of the same. As against this if the petitioner plaintiff succeeds in proving that there is no previous partition and that the suit properties are the joint family properties, the written statement of these defendants is of no consequence. Hence, there is no merit in the petition.

¶21

3 of 4

¶22

35.wp2802.19.odt

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of amendment the plaintiff be permitted to lead additional evidence if necessary. Needless to say that after amendment is allowed it is open for the other side to lead evidence if required. Hence, with this liberty, petition stands dismissed.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

ssp

4 of 4

35.wp2802.19.odt

Jagannath Narayan Bhutkar v. Narayan Haribhau Bhutkar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath Narayan Bhutkar v. Narayan Haribhau Bhutkar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Madhavrao Shinde Vs Shivaji Ramkishan Shinde

Sau. Kranti Swapnil Katkar Vs Shri Swapnil Siddhartha Katkar

Mrunal Arvind Patel vs U. T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Anr.

Pritam Vinayak Patil and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Shashikant Balasaheb Chavan vs Satish Bapurao Bhujbal and Ors.

Akash Siddharth Ingle vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.