Dismissed¶¶28

Leal Developers v. Archie Julius Silveira and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Feb 2025WP/1811/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition dismissed (WP 1811 of 2025, decided 11.02.2025, N. J. Jamadar, J.). Keywords: impleadment of legal representatives of deceased plaintiff; amendment of plaint permitted along with impleadment application; limitation for bringing legal representatives on record; subsequent events in plaint amendment; substantial/irretrievable prejudice test for interference; Civil Judge Vasai order upheld; no separate amendment application required where no prejudice caused.

What did the court decide?

The application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff on record was preferred within the statutory period of limitation from the date of death of the original Plaintiff. ¶¶19

Leal Developers vs Archie Julius Silveira and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order allowing the application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff on record was sustainable. +2 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

The application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff on record was preferred within the statutory period of limitation from the date of death of the original Plaintiff.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

The trial court had recorded a finding that the persons sought to be impleaded were the legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

The Petitioners' submission that the Court would not have permitted the legal representatives to amend the Plaint by the very application by which they sought impleadment falls to be appreciated from the perspective of whether that course caused substantial prejudice to the Defendants.ratio¶¶20
Opportunity of hearing was not denied to the Petitioners-Defendants, and the trial court considered the objection raised by the Defendants to the amendment in the Plaint.ratio¶¶21
The trial court found that the averment sought by way of the proposed amendment was in the nature of subsequent events, and it is trite that the Court is required to take cautious cognizance of subsequent events.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (N. J. Jamadar, J.), 11 February 2025 — Writ Petition dismissed. The Petitioner-defendants challenged an order dated 10.09.2024 of the Civil Judge, Vasai, allowing an application by the legal representative of the deceased Plaintiff (who died on 21.03.2024) to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff on record, and also permitting those legal representatives to amend the Plaint as set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule-A to the application. Held: the impleadment application was preferred within the statutory period of limitation from the date of death, and the trial court had recorded a finding that the persons sought to be impleaded were the legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff. The contention that a separate amendment application ought to have been filed after impleadment was tested against whether the course caused substantial prejudice to the Defendants: opportunity of hearing was not denied, the Defendants' objection to the amendment was considered by the trial court, and the proposed amendment pleaded subsequent events, of which courts are required to take cautious cognizance. The procedure adopted caused no irretrievable or substantial prejudice to the Defendants; on the substance, the impugned order disclosed no infirmity, and there was no justifiable reason to interfere.

¶1

28-WP-1811-2025.DOC

¶2

Arun Sankpal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1811 OF 2025

¶6

Leal Developers a Partnership Firm, through its ..Petitioner Partner, Lisbon Pascal Colaco Versus Archie Julius Silveira & Ors …Respondents

¶7

Mr. A.S. Peerzada, with Shamiyana H, for the Petitioner.

¶8

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 11^th FEBRUARY 2025

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶11

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.02.14 16:38:43 +0530

¶13

The challenge in this Petition is to an Order dated 10^th September 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Vasai, whereby an Application preferred by the Respondent-legal representative of the Plaintiff who passed away on 21^st March 2024, to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff on record came to be allowed.

¶14

The substance of the challenge on behalf of the Petitioner is that while permitting the legal representatives to be brought on record, the learned Civil Judge also permitted the said legal representatives to carry out amendment in the Plaint as shown in paragraph 9 of the Schedule-A appended to the said Application.

¶15

1/3

¶16

28-WP-1811-2025.DOC

¶17

The learned Counsel submitted that the proper course would have been to bring the legal representatives on record and thereafter an application for amendment in the Plaint ought to have been filed. It was forcefully submitted that since legal representatives were not parties to the suit they could not have sought amendment in the Plaint.

¶18

So far as the Application to bring the legal representatives on

¶19

record, it appears that the said Application was preferred within the statutory period of limitation from the date of death of the original Plaintiff. The trial court has recorded a finding that the persons who were sought to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff were the legal representatives of the Plaintiff.

¶20

The submission on behalf of the Petitioners that the Court would not have permitted the legal representatives to amend the Plaint by the very Application by which they sought their impleadment, is required to be appreciated from the perspective as to whether the said course has caused any substantial prejudice to the Defendants.

¶21

It is not the case that opportunity of hearing was denied to the Petitioners-Defendants. The trial court has also considered the objection raised by the Defendants to the amendment in the Plaint. The trial court found that the averment sought by way of proposed amendment was in

¶22

the nature of subsequent events. It is trite that the Court is required to take cautious cognizance of the subsequent events.

¶23

2/3

¶24

28-WP-1811-2025.DOC

¶25

Therefore, on the substance of the matter, the Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. As regards the correctness of the procedure adopted by the learned Civil Judge it does not appear that the said course has caused irretrievable prejudice to the Defendants.

¶26

This, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere

¶27

with such order which otherwise does not cause any substantial prejudice to the Defendants.

¶28

Hence the Petition stands dismissed.

¶29

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶30

3/3

Leal Developers v. Archie Julius Silveira and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leal Developers v. Archie Julius Silveira and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Madhukar Sadashiv Kokate vs Mr. Dashrath Vitthal Shitole and Ors.

Abdul Kadir Ahmedsaheb Kokni and Ors. vs Abedin Mohammad Mohyoddin Kokni and Ors.

Atul Madhukar Rane vs Ningayya Basayya Swami and Ors.

Ramesh Assandas Jagasia vs Varsha Chandru Vazirani and Ors.

Jeetendra Thomara Pujary vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Saleha Anwarali Khan and Ors. vs Vibha R. Singh and Ors.