wp1860.16.J.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1860 OF 2016
Shamsundar Gulabchand Agrawal,
Aged 71 years, Occ: Business,
Prop of Shyam General Stores,
Gokul Colony, Akola,
Resident of A-25, Lala Lajpatrai
Housing Society, Wing No.1,
Gokul Colony, Akola,
Tq. & Dist. Akola. ....... PETITIONER
ig ...V E R S U S...
Dinkar Shantaram Ingole,
Age: Adult, R/o Gokul Colony,
Jawahar Nagar, Akola,
Tq. & Dist. Akola. ....... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.M. Agrawal, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri Deepak Patil, Advocate for Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th OCTOBER, 2016.
DATE: 19
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the lower Appellate Court rejecting the application for amendment of written statement filed in Regular ::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 00:55:24 ::: wp1860.16.J.odt 2/4 Civil Appeal No.136 of 2011 holding that a part of plea raised in the amendment was available to the defendant when the written statement was filed. On the second aspect of subsequent events, there is no finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court.
3] With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, I have gone through the copy of the plaint and the application for amendment of written statement. Para No.23-D and onwards of the proposed amendment seeks to bring on record the subsequent events, for that purpose documents are also filed on record. The subsequent events have bearing on the question of bona fide requirement of the land-lord, and hence to that extent the amendment should have been allowed by the lower Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that he shall not ask for remand of the matter back to the trial court for de novo trial.
4] In view of above, the writ petition is allowed.
The order dated 09.02.2016 passed below Exh.45 in Regular Civil Appeal No.136 of 2011 is quashed and set aside to the extent it refuses to allow the application introducing the proposed amendment in para 23-D and onwards. The application to that ::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 00:55:24 ::: wp1860.16.J.odt 3/4 extent is allowed. The trial court shall permit the consequential amendment, if to made by the plaintiff. Any adjournment in the matter at the instance of the petitioner-tenant before the lower Appellate Court shall be for the costs not less than of Rs.5000/-.
JUDGE
NSN
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 00:55:24 :::
wp1860.16.J.odt 4/4
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : Uploaded on : 21.10.2016.
N.S. Nikhare, P.A.
::: Uploaded on - 21/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/10/2016 00:55:24 :::