Shri. Laxman S/O Bhimaji ... vs Union Of India, Thr. General ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1858 Bom

                                                                                  1                                                                wp4053.16

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                                                       WRIT PETITION NO.4053/2016


1.            Shri Laxman S/o Bhimaji Gummalwar,
              aged about 52 Yrs., Occu. Electrician. 

2.            Sou. Sushila W/o Laxman Gummalwar, 
              aged about 46 Yrs., Occu. Housewife. 

              Both R/o At Post Sironcha, Tah. Sironcha, 
              Distt. Gadchiroli.                                                                                                                               ..Petitioners.

                          ..Vs..

              Union of India, through General Manager, 
              Central Railway, CST, Mumbai.                                                                                                          ..Respondent.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
               Shri P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners. 
               Shri Z.S. Shekhani, Advocate h/f Shri R.G. Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 




                                                                 CORAM :  Z.A.HAQ, J.

                                                                 DATE  :     19.4.2017.




ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Shri P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Z.S.

Shekhani, Advocate h/f Shri R.G. Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The original claimants have challenged the order passed by the

2 wp4053.16

Tribunal rejecting the application filed by them seeking permission to amend

the claim petition. Considering the facts of the case, the proposed amendment

and the explanation given by the claimants, I am of the view that the Tribunal

has taken a hyper-technical view. Looking to the nature of proceedings the

Tribunal should have taken a pragmatic view.

Hence the following order:

(i)                The impugned order is set aside. 

(ii)               The application filed by the claimants seeking permission to amend

the claim petition is allowed. 

(iii)              The   Tribunal   is   directed   to   dispose   the   claim   petition   till   30 th

September, 2017.

Rule made absolute in the above terms.

In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Tambaskar.