The petitioner challenged orders allowing amendment of a plaint and extending time for such amendment. The court held that the amendment was necessitated by subsequent events (2018-2022) and rejected the writ petition.
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.
k 1/2 9 wp 9772.24 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9772 OF 2024
Maria Francis D’souza & Ors. ....Petitioners V/S Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society ....Respondent
Mr. Jagdish N. Jayale for the Petitioners. Mr. Abhishek Ingale a/w Mr. Pradeep Kumar i/b M/s. C.R. Naidu & Co. for Respondent.
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 12 NOVEMBER 2024.
P.C.:
Page No. 1 of 2
katkam
k 2/2 9 wp 9772.24 as.doc
amendment in question is necessitated on account of the events that took place during years 2018 to 2022. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff was not diligent enough in applying for amendment within reasonable time. Mr. Jayale’s contention is that the plaint was already amended on five earlier occasions from 1998 to 2017 and that the Plaintiff cannot go on amending the plaint endlessly. In normal circumstances, what Mr. Jayale contends could have been right. In the present case the fifth amendment was carried out on 12 September 2017 and thereafter the Petitioner is accused of indulging in further unauthorized construction during the years 2018 to 2022. Those events will have to be brought on record by further amendment of the plaint. The sixth amendment is thus necessitated on account of alleged conduct of Petitioner. Therefore mere the numerical figure of amendments earlier carried out cannot be a reason for disallowing the amendment arising out of occurrence of subsequent events. Any delay in decision of the suit on account of amendments in plaint actually enures to be benefit of Petitioner/Defendant, whose possession of the premises would become unlawful only from the date of decree of the suit, if Plaintiff succeeds in the suit. I therefore do not find any valid reason to interfere in the impugned orders. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.
Digitally signed by SUDARSHANRAJALINGAM SUDARSHANRAJALINGAMKATKAM KATKAM Date: 2024.11.14 14:50:28 +0530
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
Page No. 2 of 2
katkam
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Small Causes Court erred in allowing the amendment of the plaint and extending time for such amendment?
Maria Francis D’souza & Ors.
Bandra Holy Family Hospital Society
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
