HEMTABEN BALUSINH CHAUHAN DEAD Vs. REVABEN WD O BABABHAI BHAIJIBHAI
LAWS(GJH)-2008-9-79
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 02,2008

HEMTABEN BALUSINH CHAUHAN DEAD Appellant
VERSUS
REVABEN WD/O BABABHAI BHAIJIBHAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners original appellants have prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or directions, for quashing and setting aside the order passed below Exh. 15 by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 4, Gandhinagar, in Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 2004 dated 20. 10. 2007, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioners to amend the Memo of Appeal and inserting the grounds raised in the petition. It appears that it is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that present petitioners appellants have given an application for amendment of written statement before trial Court at Exh. 84 before lower appellate court, which was rejected and against which, they have preferred C. R. A. No. 1040 of 1996 before this Court and in mean while suit was proceeded further and an application at Exh. 98 was given not to pronounce the Judgment as stay from the High Court is to be obtained. However, the said application came to be rejected and the judgment was delivered on that day. It is submitted that while disposing of C. R. A. No. 1041 of 1996, even this Court granted the liberty in favour of the petitioner to raise the said contention in memo of appeal. Accordingly, the application for amendment was submitted, however, the said came to be dismissed.
(2.) SHRI Savan N. Pandya, learned advocate for respondents has submitted that as the application is filed after the long period of '9' years, the learned appellate Court was dismissed the said application.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the liberty reserved by this Court while disposing of C. R. A. No. 1041 of 1996 and considering the facts that even appeal itself was taken up on board by the learned appellant Court after a long period of '9' years, it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of petitioners. Considering liberty reserved by the learned single Judge stated hereinabove and petition permitted to be added in memo of appeal raised in said application, if the petitioners original appellants are not permitted to amend the Memo of Appeal by inserting certain grounds, no prejudice would be caused, as ample opportunity would be given.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.