Bombay High Court
Shri. Ashok S/O. Ramkrishna ... vs Smt. Pournima W/O. Bhimrao Kewate on 31 August, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp115.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 115 OF 2016
1] Shri Ashok Ramkrishna Kalbande,
aged about 57 years, Occ. Business.
2] Smt. Anjali Ashok Kalbande,
aged 50 years, Occ. Business,
Both R/o. 30, Sanmarg Nagar, Nagpur.. PETITIONERS
ig ...VERSUS...
Smt. Pournima Bhimrao Kewate,
aged 56 years, Occ. Nil.
R/o. Plot No. 40, Sanmarg Nagar,
Nagpur....... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.G.Shukla, counsel for Petitioners.
Shri J.A.Mahajan, counsel for Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
st
DATE : 31 AUGUST, 2016 .
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally by consent of learned counsels
appearing for the parties.
2] The challenge is to the order dated 09.07.2015
2 wp115.16.odt
passed by the lower appellate Court below Exh.32 in
Regular Civil Appeal No. 387 of 2015, rejecting the
application of the petitioners-tenant for amendment of the
appeal and written statement. By way of the amendment, the
petitioners seek to bring on record the subsequent events of
passing of the decree against certain other tenants and
obtaining the possession by the landlord of the suit premises.
3] According to the learned counsel for the
respondent-landlord, the case of the landlord is for the need
of the entire premises including the room in possession of the
petitioners-tenant and therefore, the subsequent event shall
not have any bearing on the controversy involved in the suit
on merits.
4] The question as to whether the subsequent
event has a bearing on the bonafide requirement can be
gone into on merits. The application for amendment cannot
be denied on that ground. The proposed amendment is
necessary for deciding the real controversy involved in the
suit in respect of bonafide requirement. The lower appellate
Court has committed an error in rejecting the application for
3 wp115.16.odt
amendment. The petition will have, therefore, to be allowed.
5] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the appellate Court below
Exh.32 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 387 of 2010 is hereby
quashed and set aside. The application Exh. 32 filed by the
petitioners is allowed. The petitioners to carry out the
amendment within a period of two weeks from the date of first
appearance of the parties before the lower appellate Court.
The respondent is at liberty to carry out the
consequential amendment.
The appeal is pending since 2010, the lower
appellate Court to decide the appeal within a period of six
months from the date of first appearance of the parties.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
4 wp115.16.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 : August, 2016
