Bombay High Court
Mahananda W/O Tryambakrao Labade vs Devidas S/O Mahadeorao Ugale And 8 ... on 7 August, 2017
Bench: S.C. Gupte
Judgment 1 wp1138.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1138 OF 2015
Mahananda W/o. Tryambakrao Labade,
Aged about 56 yrs., Occ.: Household,
R/o. Vishwashila Colony, Behind Rangoli
Lawn, Kathora Road, Amravati (M.S.)
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. Devidas S/o. Mahadeorao Ugale,
Aged about 64 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o. Walgaon, Amravati,
Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
2. Ramdas S/o. Mahadeorao Ugale,
Aged about 70 yrs., Occ.: Agriculturist,
R/o. Gadgenagar, Behind Hanuman Temple,
Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
3. Ambadas S/o. Mahadeorao Ugale,
Aged about 75 yrs., Occu.: Agriculturist,
R/o. Anand Vihar Colony, Behind Viddut
Nagar, Near Harshraj Colony, Amravati,
Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
4. Vinod S/o. Mahadeorao Ugale,
Aged abut 62 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,
R/o. Swawlambinagar, Kathora Road,
Amravati, Tah & Dist. Amravati.
5. Dnyaneshwar S/o. Mahadeorao Ugale,
Aged about 57 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Arun Colony, Behind Viddut Nagar,
Amravati, Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
6. Nandkishore S/o. Mahadeorao Ugale,
Aged about 42 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Bhatkar Plot, Near Punam Photo Studio,
Gadgenagar, Amravati, Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2017 01:44:06 :::
Judgment 2 wp1138.15.odt
7. Sunanda W/o. Shivramji Chaudhari,
Aged about 47 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Upper Wardha Colony, Arvi,
Tq. Arvi, Dist. Wardha.
8. Madhuri W/o. Uddhavrao Chaudhari,
Aged about 43 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Pidadiwada, Walgaon,
Tq & Dist. Amravati.
9. Chhaya D/o. Dnyaneshwarrao Ugale,
Aged about : Major, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Walgaon, Tq. & Dist.: Amravati.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri J.M.Gandhi, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri S.P.Dapurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri N.R.Saboo, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3, 5 & 9.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : S.C.Gupte, J.
DATED : AUGUST 07, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing
by consent of the parties.
3. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Joint Civil
Judge Junior Division, Amravati on application made by the petitioner
(original defendant No.7) for withdrawal of the written statement filed
Judgment 3 wp1138.15.odt
earlier in common with defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9 and for filing of a
fresh written statement.
4. The application was on the footing that the written statement
was signed by defendant No.7 after being approached by defendant No.1
along with some typed papers. Defendant No.1 being the brother of
defendant No.7, in good faith and relying upon defendant No.1, the written
statement was signed by her. It is the case of defendant No.7 that after she
engaged counsel, she learnt that she was misrepresented and misled by
defendant No.1. In the premises, the application was preferred for filing of a
separate written statement of defendant No.7 after permitting her to
withdraw her previous written statement.
5. The learned Judge, in his impugned order, has recorded that
defendant No.7 could not point out any provision of law that would permit
her to file a fresh written statement in place of the original written statement.
Besides this reason, there is nothing stated in the order on the application for
permission to withdraw the written statement. The case of defendant No.7
that she signed the written statement in good faith relying upon her brother-
defendant No.1, is not considered by the learned Judge in the impugned
order. There is nothing to show that any original admission made in the
written statement commonly filed on behalf of defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7
and 9 was sought to be retracted by defendant No.7 in her written statement
Judgment 4 wp1138.15.odt
to be filed. This is simply because there is no draft written statement
proposed and filed along with the application for withdrawal of the original
written statement and its substitution by a fresh written statement.
6. In the premises, the impugned order of the learned Civil Judge
Junior Division cannot be sustained. The order is accordingly, quashed and
set aside. Defendant No.7 will be entitled to renew her application for
withdrawal of her written statement and filing of a fresh written statement
after annexing the draft of such written statement along with the application.
7. The learned Judge shall deal with such application afresh in
accordance with law.
8. Rule is made absolute and the petition is disposed of in the
above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
