Vishwanath S/O Tulshiram Dhande vs Murlidhar S/O Rambhau Dhande, ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 518 Bom

JUDGMENT

D.S. Zoting, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.P. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2.

2. The revision is preferred against the order of rejection of the application for amendment. The impugned order is in the nature of interlocutory order and therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 contended that the revision is not maintainable in view of the decision of this court in a case of Rajabhau V/s Dinkar (2002(3) Mh.L.J.921) and Nagorao V/s Narayan (2002(4) Mh.L.J.615), in which it is held that a revision against interlocutory order is not maintainable.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a case of Badrinarayan Bansilal Somani V/s Vinodkumar K. Shah (2003(2) Mh.L.J.120), contended that the revision has not become infructuous. In the said case it is held that amendment of written statement which was filed prior to 1.7.2002 is not affected by insertion of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code. In this case, it is held that rejection of amendment to written statement can not be held to be the proper exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court below and the same warrants interference in the revisional jurisdiction, as the impugned order if allowed to remain on record would result in failure of justice. It is to be noted that the said case was decided on 13th August, 2002. In this case, the question as regards maintainability was not raised and decided. The said issue was decided in the above referred two cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2. Therefore, the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no avail to him.

4. In view of the well settled principle laid down by this court in the above referred two cases, which are relied by the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2, there can not be any doubt that the revision is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.

5. Rule is discharged.

6. Ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 18th July 1998 stands vacated.