Bombay High Court
Shree Ganesh Housing Agency ... vs Shri Udaram S/O Laxman Devikar And ... on 22 August, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp5760.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5760 OF 2014
1] Shree Ganesh Housing Agency,
Through Authorized person - Shri
Ashok s/o Anandrao Dhopodkar,
aged about 42 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Kalamna to Kamptee Road,
Ranala, Tah. Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur.
2]
Shri Ashok s/o Anandrao Dhopodkar,
aged about 42 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Pachpaoli Road, Kumbharpura,
Behind Pivdi Mabti, Jagnath Budhwari,
Nagpur PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1] Udaram Laxman Divekar,
aged Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. House No. 70, In front of T.B.Hospital,
Jagnath Budhwari, Pathrate Mohalla,
Nagpur.
2. Shri Harishchandra s/o Chaitram Khumbhare,
aged Major, Occ. Business,
R/o. Chimabai Peth, Near Daulat Flour Mill,
Timki, Nagpur. RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri H.I.Kothari, counsel for Petitioners.
Shri D.G.Paunikar, counsel for Respondent no. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 22 nd AUGUST, 2016 .
2 wp5760.14.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] The challenge is to the order dated 12.08.2014
passed below Exh.32 in Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 2012,
rejecting the application for amendment of written statement.
According to the petitioners, the words of denial of certain
averments made in the plaint remained to be incorporated in
the written statement and that being formal in nature, keeping
in view the entire tenor of the written statement, the Court
should have allowed it.
2] Notices were issued by this Court on 24.11.2014
as well as on 01.04.2016. All the parties are served. No one
appears for respondent no.1, the original plaintiff, in spite of
service of notice.
Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard by consent of the learned counsels
appearing for the parties.
3] After going through the averments made in the
written statement as well as the claim made in the application
for amendment, it seems that the inadvertent omissions are
3 wp5760.14.odt
required to be corrected and for that purpose the amendment
was proposed. The Court should have allowed that
amendment, keeping in view the tone and tenor of the written
statement filed by the petitioners. The order, therefore,
cannot be sustained.
4] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 12.08.2014, passed below Exh. 32 in Regular
Civil Suit No. 168/2012 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The application Exh.32 is allowed.
Necessary amendment be carried out within a
period of two weeks from the date of first appearance of the
parties before the trial Court.
The parties to appear before the trial Court on
07.09.2016.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No
orders as to costs.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
4 wp5760.14.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy
of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by : R.V.Jalit, P.A. Uploaded on : 24 August, 2016
