Bombay High Court
Uttam S/O. Paundlikrao Urkude vs The State Of Maharshtra Thr. ... on 10 October, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp3486.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.3486 of 2016
Uttam s/o Pundlikrao Urkude,
Aged about 41 years,
Occupation - Business,
R/o Ward No.2, Khed,
Tahsil - Brahmapuri,
District - Chandrapur. ... Petitioner/
Ori. Plaintiff
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Brahmapuri, Tahsil - Brahmapuri,
District - Chandrapur.
2. The Range Forest Officer,
Brahmapuri Range, Brahmapuri,
District - Chandrapur. ... Ori.Deft.Nos.1 & 2
3. The Collector, Chandrapur. ... Proposed Defendant
4. The Tahsildar, Brahmapuri,
District - Chandrapur. ... Proposed Defendant
...Respondents
Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms Hemlata Jaipurkar, AGP for Respondents.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Dated : 10 October, 2016
th
wp3486.16.odt
Oral Judgment :
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. By the impugned order dated 12-4-2016 passed in Regular
Civil Suit No.210 of 2013, the Trial Court has rejected the application
for joining the Collector, Chandrapur, and the Tahsildar, Brahmapuri,
District Chandrapur, as party-defendants in the suit filed simpliciter
for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit
property. It is not the averment in the plaint that the Collector,
Chandrapur or the Tahsildar, Bramhapuri are trying to disturb the
possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. In view of this, no
fault can be found with the view taken by the Trial Court to reject the
claim for joining the Collector, Chandrapur, and the Tahsildar,
Bramhapuri as party-defendants in the said suit.
3. The application under Order I, Rule 10, and under Order VI,
Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a composite one. Para 3 of
the said application seeks to incorporate para 4-A in the plaint to bring
wp3486.16.odt
on record the subsequent events. The said application to that extent
should have been allowed by the Trial Court permitting to incorporate
para 4-A in the plaint. Whether the facts stated therein have any
bearing on the controversy involved in the matter or not, will have to
be adjudicated on merits by the Trial Court.
4. In view of above, the petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order dated 12-4-2016, is hereby quashed and set aside to
the extent it rejects the prayer for incorporating para 4-A by way of
amendment in the plaint. The application to the extent only is
allowed. The plaintiff is permitted to incorporate para 4-A in the
plaint. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of two
weeks from the date of first appearance of the parties before the Trial
Court.
5. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar
wp3486.16.odt
CERTIFICATE
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : P.D. Lanjewar, PS
Uploaded on : 13-10-2016
