Deepak S/O Sundarlal Muraka And ... vs Sau. Sangita W/O Prakash Modi ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2653 Bom

     Judgment                                         1                                wp4894.14.odt




                                                                                  
                   
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                          
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 4894  OF 2014




                                                         
     1.       Deepak S/o. Sundarlal Murarka,
              Aged : 47 Years, Occu.: Business,




                                           
     2.       Smt. Kalawatibai Sunderlal Murarka,
              Aged : Adult, Occu.: Home-maker,
                             
              Both R/o. Near Tower, Shrawagi
              Plots, Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola.
                            
      
                                                                      ....  PETITIONERS.

                                       //  VERSUS //
      


     1.       Sau. Sangita W/o.Prakash Modi,
   



              Aged : 45 years, Occu.: Home-maker,
              R/o. Muskan Apartment, Flat No.01,
              Ground floor, Plot No.4/1, Sector-12-A,
              Bonkode, Koper Khairne, New Mumbai-





              400 705.

     2.       Govind Madanlal Murarka,
              Aged : 65 years, Occu.: Business,
              R/o. Near Tower, Shrawagi Plots,





              Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola.  
                                                    .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                    . 
      ______________________________________________________________
     Shri U.J.Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioners. 
     Shri M.G.Sarda, Advocate for Respondents.
     ______________________________________________________________

                                  CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JUNE 08, 2016.

      Judgment                                          2                                wp4894.14.odt




                                                                                   
     ORAL JUDGMENT : 




                                                           

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3.

The petitioners/original defendants have filed this petition

challenging the order passed by the trial Court allowing the application

(Exh.32) filed by the respondent No.1 / original plaintiff under Order

VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and permitting her to amend

the plaint.

4. The respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed civil suit praying

for decree for partition and separate possession of the alleged ancestral

properties. The respondent No.1 filed application (Exh.32) contending

that after filing of the civil suit she got knowledge that agricultural land

Gut No.34, Sr. No.41, Gut No.35 and Gut No.41/3, situated at

Washimba were purchased by the original defendant No.1 out of the

income of joint family, and sought permission to amend the plaint by

seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the above

agricultural land also. The learned trial Judge, after considering the

Judgment 3 wp4894.14.odt

material on record and dealing with the objections raised by the

petitioners, allowed the application (Exh.32) by the impugned order.

5. I have gone through the documents placed on the record of

the petition. The learned advocate for the petitioners has not been able

to point out any legal impediment because of which the proposed

amendment could not have been allowed. I do not find any patent

illegality in the impugned order or any error of jurisdiction by the trial

Court. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the

parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

RRaut..