Allowed

Thomas George Kallukaran v. Nawshawk Multimedia Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2024WP/401/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted leave to amend the writ petition to delete specific prayers and respondents. The judge held the lower court's refusal to frame an issue regarding maintainability to be erroneous based on pleadings, and issued notice.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to delete prayer clause (a) and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3; Notice issued to Respondent No. 1; Adjournment of Trial Court proceedings requested.

Thomas George Kallukaran vs Nawshawk… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

9 wp 401.24 as.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.401 OF 2024

¶5

Thomas George Kallukaran ...Petitioner vs. Newshawk Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondents

¶6

Ms. Ratna Bhargavan a/w Mr. Hetvi Mota Savla, Ms. Pooja Vishwakarma i/b M/s. R Bhargavan & Associates, for the Petitioner.

¶7

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 2 JULY 2024

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks leave to delete the prayer clause (a) as well as Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the Petition with a liberty to file a separate Petition in regard thereto. Leave granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

¶10

2 The grievance of the Petitioner is with regard to order dated 18 October 2023 where the Small Causes Court has refused to frame additional issues suggested by the Petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has particularly pressed issue no.1 before me, which is about maintainability of the suit. It appears that in the Written Statement specific contention is raised that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable before the Small Causes Court. The impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court would indicate that the Court has refused

katkam

1 / 2

9 wp 401.24 as.doc

to frame the said issue by observing that “There is nothing on record to show at present that the amount was so paid by the defendant and even there is nothing on record as to the entitlement of such tenant to claim such part ownership.” In my view issues are to be framed on the basis of pleadings and not on the basis of evidence. Prima facie, therefore the order passed by the learned Judge qua issue no.1 appears to be erroneous.

¶16

3 Issue notice to the Respondent No.1, returnable on 12 August 2024. In addition to Court notice the Petitioner is permitted to serve private notice on the Respondent No.1 and file Affidavit-of-service before the next date of hearing.

¶17

4 Till the next date of hearing, the Trial Court is requested to adjourn the proceedings.

¶18

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date: 2024.07.04 10:35:42 +0530

¶20

katkam

¶21

2 / 2

Thomas George Kallukaran v. Nawshawk Multimedia Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas George Kallukaran v. Nawshawk Multimedia Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mushtaq Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and 5 Ors.

Samirunnisa Mohd Islam vs Mushtaq Shaikh and 5 Ors.

Sidharam Mallappa Unnad Vs Abhimanyu Basappa Rabba

Ravi Raghunath Khanjode and 23 Ors. vs Harasiddh Corporation

Jitendra Ramkrishna Naik vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

Prateek Raman Kothari vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary