Bombay High Court
Zumbar Parbhati Raikar Through ... vs Dilip Bhanudas Raikar And Others on 30 September, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 WP 10046 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No.10046 of 2016
* Zumbar s/o Parbhati Raikar,
Age 54 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Raikarwadi, Post Thergaon,
Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar,
Through its GPA
Ashok Zumbar Raikar
Age 32 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,
R/o. Raikarwadi, Post Thergaon,
Taluka Karjat,
District Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner.
Versus
1) Dilip s/o Bhanudas Raikar,
Age 42 years,
Occupation: Agri. & Service.
R/o. Raikarwadi, Post Thergaon,
Taluka Karjat,
District Ahmednagar.
2) Shankar s/o Bhanudas Raikar,
Age 52 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
R/o. Raikarwadi, Post Thergaon,
Taluka Karjat,
District Ahmednagar.
3) Kundlik s/o Bhanudas Raikar,
Age 46 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
R/o. Raikarwadi, Post Thergaon,
Taluka Karjat,
District Ahmednagar. .. Respondents.
--------
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2016 00:07:07 :::
2 WP 10046 of 2016
Shri. N.C. Garud, Advocate, for petitioner.
Shri. Vinayak P. Narwade & Smt. Manushri V. Narwade,
Advocates, for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
----------
CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATE : 30 SEPTEMBER 2016
JUDGMENT:
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent, heard both sides for final disposal.
2) The present petition is filed to challenge the
order made by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division
Karjat on Exhibit 63 in Regular Civil Suit No.61/2012. The
application for making amendment of the plaint is rejected
by the trial Court. The suit is filed in respect of land Gat
No.212/1 and the relief of injunction is claimed. It appears
that at one place in the body of the plaint in stead of
describing the property as Gat No.212/1 the property is
described as 212/2. The plaintiff has contended that it is a
typing mistake and so correction needs to be made on
page 2 of the plaint accordingly. Learned Judge of the
trial Court has held that due diligence was not shown and
so the application cannot be allowed.
3 WP 10046 of 2016
3) Learned counsel for respondent, defendant
submitted that even in the evidence filed on affidavit
similar mistake is committed by the plaintiff. It is known
that Advocates follow the practice of virtually reproducing
everything from the plaint to make the affidavit which is
filed as examination-in-chief. Due to this circumstance,
there is possibility that similar mistake has appeared in
the evidence
ig filed on affidavit. In view of these
circumstances, this Court holds that the trial Court ought
to have allowed the application. The nature of the suit
will not change due to amendment as relief was claimed in
respect of Gat No.212/1 and not in respect of Gat
No.212/2.
4) The petition is allowed. The order made by the
trial Court is hereby set aside. The application at Exhibit
63 is allowed. Amendment is to be carried out accordingly
within 15 days when the order reaches to the trial Court.
Rule is made absolute in those terms.
Sd/-
(T.V. NALAWADE, J. )
rsl
