Bombay High Court
Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, ... vs Sandip Ram Meghe And Others on 2 May, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-wp680.16.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.680 OF 2016
1. Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society,
P.T.R. No.F-242/Amravati,
"Chaitanya" in front of B.S.N.L.
Office, Near B & C Office,
Camp Road, Amravati, through its
Secretary, Yuvrajsingh Vasantrao Choudhari.
2. Shri Nitin Ramdas Dhande,
Aged 51 years,
President of Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society,
Amravati, Camp, Amravati.
3. Shri Vinay Pundlikrao Gohad,
Aged 55 years,
Occupation : Service,
Vice-President of Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society,
Amravati, R/o. Indraprastha Colony,
Shegaon Road, Amravati.
4. Shri Yuvrajsingh Vasantrao Choudhari,
Aged 47 years,
Secretary of Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society,
Amravati, R/o. Jog Compound, Mangilal Plot,
Amravati.
5. Shri Pankaj Surendra Deshmukh,
Aged 46 years,
Treasurer of Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society,
Amravati, R/o. 7, Shakuntal Colony,
Near V.M.V. College, Amravati.
6. Shri Hemant Murlidhar Deshmukh,
Aged 56 years,
Occupation : Service,
Executive Council Member of
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:37:48 :::
J-wp680.16.odt 2/4
Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society,
Amravati, R/o. Trimurti,
Near District Court, Camp, Amravati.
7. Shri Ragini Hemant Deshmukh,
Aged 53 years,
Occupation : Service and
Executive Council Member of
Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society,
Amravati, R/o. Trimurti Near District Court,
Camp Amravati.
8. Shri Nitin Baburao Hivase,
Aged 54 years,
Executive Council Member of
Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society,
Amravati, R/o. Vivekananda Colony, Amravati.
9. Shri Gajanan Shankarrao Kale,
Aged 50 years,
Occupation : Service and
Executive Council Member of
Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society,
Amravati, R/o. Shivmudra, Plot No.2,
Near Sharda Vihar, Hanuman Nagar,
Amravati.
10. Shri Uday Shashi Kumar Deshmukh,
Aged 55 years,
Occupation : Legal Practitioner and
the Executive Council Member of
Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society,
Amravati, R/o. Opp. I.T.I. Morshi Road,
Amravati. : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. Sandip Ram Meghe,
Aged about 57 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Gulmohor Colony, Camp,
Amravati, Tq. And Distt. Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:37:48 :::
J-wp680.16.odt 3/4
2. Shekhar Dinkarrao Deshmukh,
Aged about 57 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Vrindavan Colony, Sai Nagar,
Amravati, Tq. And Distt. Amravati.
3. Dr. Shrirish Santoshrao Gode,
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist,
R/o. Adarsha Colony, Arvi Road,
Wardha, Tq. And Distt. Wardha.
4. Sau. Archana Shekhar Deshmukh,
Aged about 53 years,
Occupation : Service,
Vrindavan Colony, Sai Nagar,
Amravati, Tq. And Distt. Amravati. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri A.J. Kadu, Advocate for the Respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
nd MAY, 2016.
DATE : 2
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. It is seen from the impugned order, as rightly submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that one of the objections
taken to the amendment application filed by the respondents-
J-wp680.16.odt 4/4
plaintiffs regarding mis-joinder of causes of action has not been
considered at all by the trial Court while passing the impugned
order. Reply filed to the amendment application in fact shows that
the objections regarding mis-joinder of causing of action was
specifically taken. The objection is significant from the nature of
amendment sought to be incorporated and, therefore, ought to have
been considered and adjudicated upon one way or the other.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that although such an
objection was taken in the reply, same was not argued before the
trial Court. However, this fact is not borne out from the impugned
order. Therefore, in my view, the order impugned here cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.
3. Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed.
4. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
5. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for
deciding the application vide Exh.-23 afresh in accordance with
law.
6. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No costs.
JUDGE
okMksns
