Petition challenged an order allowing amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC adding a consequential declaratory prayer of ownership in a declaration suit. The court found no impediment to interference, sustained the order with consent, and directed disposal of the suit within five months.
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.
16.wp.5863.16.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5863 OF 2016
Shivaji Anand Avhad..Petitioner
Versus
Sonabai Jagannath Avhad and Ors.
..Respondents
Mr. Pandit Kasar, Advocate for Petitioner.Mr. K.H. Holambe Patil a/w. Mr. K.K. Holambe Patil and Mr. Nitin Markute, Advocates for Respondents.CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:JANUARY 23, 2024.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kasar, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr.
Holambe Patil, Advocate for Respondents.
2. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated
08.10.2015 passed in Application filed below Exhibit “31” in Regular
Civil Suit No.119 of 2015. By virtue of the Application filed under
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a Suit filed
for declaration by the Plaintiff, Plaintiff sought an additional
declaratory prayer to declare the Plaintiff as the owner of the Suit
property. Prima facie it is seen that the said relief is in the nature of a
consequential relief to the principal relief prayed for by the Plaintiff in
the Suit proceedings. That Application was allowed and therefore
there can be no impediment whatsoever to interfere with the
impugned order.
1 of 2
16.wp.5863.16.doc
3. However it is seen that Mr. Kasar and Mr. Patil, both are ad idem that the Suit has proceeded and the evidence of Plaintiffs is almost over as informed by Mr. Kasar. Mr. Kasar would therefore submit that this Court be pleased to pass appropriate directions to dispose of Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 2015 as expeditiously as possible in order to redress the grievances of the parties at the earliest. It is a very fair suggestion given by Mr. Kasar. I am inclined to accept the same. Mr. Patil endorses the suggestion of Mr. Kasar.
4. In view of the above and more specifically in view of the observations and findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in the order dated 08.10.2015, the said order is sustained.
5. The learned Trial Court however is requested and directed by this Court to dispose of Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 2015 within a period of 5 months from today in view of the fact that the Suit has remained pending since the year 2015.
6. Both the learned Advocates on instructions would submit that the parties shall not take any unnecessary adjournment before the learned Trial Court and assist the Court for disposal of the said Suit within the aforementioned time frame as suggested and directed by this Court.
7. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
2 of 2
Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE UGALMUGALE Date: 2024.01.23 19:30:01 +0530
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court could allow amendment adding a consequential declaratory relief of ownership in a pending declaration suit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shivaji Anand Avhad
Sonabai Jagannath Avhad
Milind N. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court