Purchaser-defendant challenged the trial Court's order allowing amendment of plaint adding a permanent injunction prayer after framing of issues, arguing lack of due diligence. The High Court found substance in the challenge, issued notice returnable on 03/12/2024 and stayed hearing of the suit till then.
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.
6 Wp-3394-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3394 OF 2024 (SERIAL NO. 6)
Ramesh Satyanarayan Pasnur ...Petitioner
vs.
M/S United Developers And Ors.
...Respondents
ALONGWITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3574 OF 2024 (SERIAL NO. 7)
Ramesh Satyanarayan Pasnur
...Petitioner
vs.
M/S United Developers And Ors.
...Respondents
Adv. Swapnil Dage i/by Adv. Advocate for the Petitioner Shrikant Kompelli
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 16th OCTOBER 2024
that possession is with the person to whom the plots are sold and
1/2
Seema
6 Wp-3394-2024.doc
whereas some of the plots are in his possession.
filed.
8. In the meantime, hearing of the suit is stayed till next date.
2/2
Seema Signed by: Seema Yelkar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 18/10/2024 15:18:40
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court erred in allowing amendment of the plaint to add a permanent injunction prayer after issues were framed, for want of due diligence?
Ramesh Satyanarayan Pasnur
M/S United Developers
S. M. Modak
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
