Allowed

Shri. Vitthalrao S/O Namdeorao Lad, Since Died Thr. His Lrs. v. Tukaram S/O Namdeorao Lad and Others

Bombay HC22 Jan 2024WP/469/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against rejection of an application to amend a plaint in a partition suit, moved to meet a maintainability plea regarding non-inclusion of certain properties. The High Court held the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the amendment at such an initial stage and quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 26.09.2023 rejecting amendment application quashed; petitioners permitted to amend plaint in terms of Exh.39; no costs.

Shri. Vitthalrao S/O Namdeorao Lad, Since Died Thr. His Lrs. vs… — Partition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:7783

¶2

1 16.WP.469-2024.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 469 OF 2024

¶5

( Shri Vitthalrao s/o Namdeorao Lad (dead), Thr. LRs. Vs.

¶6

Shri Tukaram s/o Namdeorao Lad & Ors. )

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Mr. G.R. Sadar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. P.S. Thakur, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2, 2A, 3, 5, 9 &11.

¶9

CORAM: N.R. BORKAR, J.

¶10

DATED : 15^th JULY, 2024

¶11

Heard.

¶12

2 . This Petition takes exception to the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Nandgaon Khandeshwar, District Amravati below Exh. 39 in R.C.S. No.47/2016.

¶13

3 . The Petitioners are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. The suit is for partition and separate possession.

¶14

4 . By the order impugned, the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by the present Petitioners for amendment of plaint.

¶15

5 . The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits

¶16

2 16.WP.469-2024.odt

¶17

that, application for amendment was moved as plea was raised in the written statement about maintainability of suit for non-inclusion of certain properties. It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application only on the ground that it was moved after commencement of trial. It is submitted that, the trial of suit is at very initial stage as only issues are framed.

¶18

6 . Considering the fact that suit is for partition the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the application. The order impugned is thus quashed and set aside. The learned Trial Court shall permit the Petitioners to amend the plaint in terms of Exh.39.

¶19

7 . The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No

¶20

costs.

¶21

8 . Considering the fact that the suit is for partition and separate possession, the learned Trial Court shall endeavour to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

9 . Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(N.R. BORKAR, J.)

¶24

SD. Bhimte

¶25

Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 22/07/2024 18:53:54

Shri. Vitthalrao S/O Namdeorao Lad, Since Died Thr. His Lrs. v. Tukaram S/O Namdeorao Lad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vitthalrao S/O Namdeorao Lad, Since Died Thr. His Lrs. v. Tukaram S/O Namdeorao Lad and Others

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

Kiran @ Baban Dadaso Holkar Vs State of Maharashtra

Gurudatta Alias Baba Ashok Pande Vs State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Bhupal Bansode Vs State of Maharashtra

Shrikrushna Madhukar Dharme and Another vs Manohar Aditmal Kruplani

Kishor Ashok Shinde vs State of Maharashtra

Somesh Bajarang Chavan vs State of Maharashtra