Bombay High Court
Shri. Angatsingh S/O. ... vs Smt. Suman Wd/O. Madhukar ... on 25 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp2373.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2373 OF 2016
Shri Angatsingh S/o. Laxmansingh Khagar,
Aged about 58 years, Occupation: Business,
R/o. Plot No.346, Ashok Chowk,
Unthkhana, Nagpur.
.... PETITIONER.
ig // VERSUS //
1. Smt. Suman wd/o. Madhukar Parlewar,
Aged Adult, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Near Ashok Chowk, Plot No.346,
Unthkhana, Nagpur.
2. Madhukar Parlewar,
(Since Deceased through his Legal
Representatives)
2-A.Prashant S/o. Madhukar Parlewar,
Aged about 49 years, Occupation : Service,
2-B.Prafulla S/o. Madhukar Parlewar,
Aged about 39 years, Occupation : Service,
Both respondent Nos. 2A and 2B,
R/o. Near Ashok Chowk, Plot No.346,
Untkhana, Nagpur.
2C. Archana W/o. Manish Puttewar,
Aged about 42 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Residential Colony, Sevagram
Medical College, Sevagram, Wardha.
2D. Sameer S/o. Madhav Parlewar,
Aged about 29 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Bandra, East, mumbai.
2E. Yogita wd/o. Pravin Parlewar,
Aged Major, Occu.: Not Known,
::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 00:04:09 :::
Judgment 2 wp2373.16.odt
2F. Ku. Sayali d/o. Pravin Parlewar,
Age : Not Known, Occu. Not Known,
2G. Ku. Aditi d/o. Pravin Parlewar,
Age : Not Known, Occu. Not Known,
Respondent Nos. 2E to 2G
R/o. West Balaji Nagar, Manewada Road,
Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri S.S.Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner-original Plaintiff.
Shri R.M.Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.1-original Deft.No.1.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JULY 25, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner-original plaintiff and
learned advocate for the respondent No.1/ original defendant No.1. None
for the respondent Nos. 2-A to 2-G, though served.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The order passed by the learned trial Judge rejecting
application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure seeking permission to amend the plaint, is challenged.
4. The plaintiff has filed civil suit praying for decree for specific
performance of contract in respect of the house property against the
defendants. The same property was subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No.
Judgment 3 wp2373.16.odt
1570 of 2000 to which the defendant No.1 and original defendant No.2 were
parties. Regular Civil Suit No. 1570 of 2000 was decided by the judgment
dated 16th September, 2000 against which Regular Civil Appeal No.303 of
2011 was filed, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the
trial Court for fresh decision and then Regular Civil suit No. 1570 of 2000 is
withdrawn.
5.
By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff wants to bring on
record some details relating to the pleadings of the parties in Regular Civil
Suit No.1570 of 2000. As Regular Civil Suit No. 1570 of 2000 is withdrawn,
the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff has become inconsequential.
The learned trial Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the
application (Exh.95) filed by the plaintiff. I see no reason to interfere with
the impugned order.
6. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to
bear their own costs.
As the civil suit is pending since 1997 the trial Court is
requested to dispose the civil suit by 15th March, 2017.
JUDGE
RRaut..
Judgment 4 wp2373.16.odt
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 : R.B. Raut, PS Uploaded on : 30.07.2016.
