Bombay High Court
Shri Gajanan Pralhad Thosar And ... vs Shri Kishor Vishwanath Morkhade ... on 1 March, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp537.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 537 of 2014
1] Shri Gajanan Pralhad Thosar,
aged 35 years, Occ. Labour Work
2] Shri Pralhad Narayan Thosar,
aged 55 years, Occ. Business,
Both R/o. Amrut Nagar, Khamgaon,
Tq. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1] Shri Kishor Vishwanath Morkhade,
aged 40 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Hingna Kawthal,
Tq. Sangrampur, Distt. Buldhana,
At present R/o. Shivaji Nagar,
Khamgaon, Tq. Khamgaon,
Distt. Buldhana.
2] Shri Pralhad Sampatrao Berad,
Aged 65 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Pathardi, Tq. Telhara,
Distt. Akola. RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.S.Kilor, counsel for Petitioners.
Shri S.S.Sharma, counsel for Respondent nos. 1 and 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
st
DATE : 1
MARCH, 2016 .
2 wp537.14.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard the matter finally by consent of the
learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2] The challenge in this petition is to the order
passed in the month of October 2013 without mentioning the
date, below Exh. 101, in Regular Civil Suit No. 13 of 2006,
allowing the application for amendment of plaint at the time of
final hearing of the suit.
3] The undisputed factual position is that the plaint
averments indicate that notice was issued by the plaintiffs to
the defendants on 23.01.2006 and the cause of action in
filing the suit is stated to be 22.01.2006. Though the suit is
styled as one for recovery of possession under various
clauses of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act
including that of bonafide requirement, undisputedly the plaint
averments are completely silent about the pleadings of
bonafide requirement. After the evidence was led and the
matter was fixed for argument, the plaintiff seems to have
3 wp537.14.odt
realized the mistake and therefore, filed an application for
permission to amend the plaint at Exh. 101. The amendment
introduces the ground of bonafide requirement by way of
paragraph 2-A. Similarly, by introducing amendment by way
of paragraph 6-A, the petitioners-plaintiffs have tried to
introduce certain averments regarding change in the original
structure of the suit property.
4] The trial Court has held that the amendment
sought brings on record the subsequent events and it will not
change the nature of the suit. The findings recorded by the
trial Court cannot be accepted for the reason that the
amendment proposed does not indicate that it is based upon
any subsequent event. The amendment proposed could
have been the part of the original plaint. The ground of
bonafide requirement appears to have been waived and after
a period of four years such an amendment could not have
been allowed, more particularly when the matter was at the
stage of final hearing. The trial Court has committed an
error in allowing the application for amendment. The order,
therefore, needs to be set aside.
4 wp537.14.odt
5] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The
order passed below Exh. 101 in the month of October, 2013,
in Regular Civil Suit No. 13 of 2006 is hereby quashed and
set aside. The application at Exh. 101 is dismissed. The trial
Court to proceed further in the matter. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
