RAMESHWAR S/O YADORAO PATALE AND ORS. Vs. MAHAVIR S/O NILKANTH PATALE AND ORS.
LAWS(BOM)-2017-2-79
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on February 16,2017

Rameshwar S/O Yadorao Patale And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Mahavir S/O Nilkanth Patale And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
(2.) By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mouda thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioners seeking amendment.
(3.) Certain facts which are not in dispute are that one Yadorao Patale instituted a suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 61 of 2012 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mouda against the present respondents/ defendants for specific performance of agreement. The petitioners were defendant Nos.6 to 9 and the respondents were the defendant Nos.1 to 5. the respondent No.1, 2 and 4 filed written statement in opposition to the contentions raised by the plaintiff-Yadorao. The respondent Nos.3 and 5 filed separate written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff Yadorao expired on 10.01.2015 and the order was passed by the Court below on Exh.50 thereby permitting the petitioners to be brought on record as plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 by way of transposition. An application came to be filed seeking an amendment in the plaint. It was stated in the application that due to the event of death of plaintiff and transposition of defendant Nos.6 to 9 as plaintiff Nos.1 to 4, there is a change in situation. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiffs are having vested interest in the property of their mother by inheritance and due to the change of situation, the plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff Yadorao, are also having interest in the property of their father i.e. Yadorao. It is further submitted that the earlier application for temporary injunction filed by the original plaintiff was rejected and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 by taking undue advantage of the order of the Court are indulged in dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit field. It is also submitted in the application that it would be necessary for the plaintiffs to protect and secure the possession and as such the plaintiffs approached the Court by way of amendment application seeking the possession of the property. The application is opposed by the respondents.;


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