Bombay High Court
Ramnath Apparao Kotule And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 17 July, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
{1}
wp 2672.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2672 OF 2016
1 Ramnath S/o Apparao Kotule
Age: 35 years, occu:agriculture
R/o Warwati Tq. & Dist. Beed
2 Keshav Maroti Thorbole
Age: 35 years, occu: agriculture
R/o Warwati Tq. & Dist. Beed
3 Bhagwan S/o Sitaram Thorbole
Age: 40 years, occu: Agriculture
R/o Warwati Tq. & Dist. Beed
4 Prabhu Maruti Thorbole
Age: 32 years, occu: Agriculture
R/o Warwati, Tq. & Dist. Beed Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
through The Collector, Beed
2 Satyabhamabai w/o Laxman Dharme
Age: 45 years, occu: Agriculture
R/o Warwati Tq. & Dist. Beed
3 Dattatraye S/o Laxman Dharme
Age: 23 years, occu: Agriculture
R/o Warwati, Tq. & Dist. Beed Respondents
{2}
wp 2672.16.odt
Miss. S.V. Salunke h/f Mr.V.D.Salunke advocate for the petitioner
Mr .N.T. Bhagat, AGP for Respondent No.1
Mr. G.K. Naik Thigale advocate for respondents No.2 & 3
_______________
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J
(Date : 17th July, 2017.)
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forth with and heard finally by
the consent of the parties.
2 The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated
25.3.2015, passed by the Trial Court, by which Application Exhibit
115 has been allowed and the respondents - plaintiffs have been
permitted to put forth the proposed paragraph 6-b and the
prayer clause 'C' in their plaint.
3 I have considered the strenuous submissions of Miss
S.V.Salunke, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and Shri Thigale learned Advocate on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the original plaintiffs.
4 It is trite law that, unless oblique motives and laches are
visible and there is no inordinate delay, an amendment can be
{3}
wp 2672.16.odt
permitted, keeping in view the proviso below Rule 17 under order
6 of the CPC. It is equally settled, as in the case of Revajeetu
Builders & Developers versus Narayanaswamy & Sons and
others ((2009) 10 SCC 84) by the Honourable Supreme Court
that, the merits of the amendment are not to be considered at
the time of grant of amendment application. What is required to
be seen is, as to whether the case sought to be put forth through
the amendment, would not result in changing the entire nature
of the cause of action or is not otherwise struck by the law of
limitation.
5 In the instant case, the plaintiffs have sought to introduce a
paragraph contending that, the sale deed No.841/97 which is
being adjudicated upon in RCS No.259/04, contained an error
with regard to mentioning of the Gat number and the description
of the adjoining lands and the names of the landlords. There are
two sale-deeds at issue before the Trial Court bearing Nos.841/97
and 842/97. It is categorically stated by the plaintiffs that, there
is no mistake in Sale deed No.842/97. It is further canvassed
that, plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.6, who are party to the first
sale deed No.841/92, have themselves got confused and have
committed the mistake in describing of the property in the sale
deed, which can be termed to be a mutual mistake.
{4}
wp 2672.16.odt
6 The Trial Court, by the impugned order, has allowed the
amendment and has imposed costs of Rs.2,000/- upon the
plaintiffs. It cannot be ignored that, no purpose would be served
by continuing with the suit on the basis of a mistake in the sale
deed, as it would not serve the purpose of deciding the issue
before the Trial Court. Admittedly, the suit would suffer on
account of a mistake in the sale deed, which has been now
noticed and can be rectified. In my view, if this correction as well
as the reasons for correction can be scrutinized by the Trial
Court, no loss would be caused to the defendants, as their
contentions will be considered by the Trial Court on their merits
and if the Trial Court is convinced that the correction sought is
without any merit, it would eventually reject the said prayer
while deciding the suit.
7 Considering the number of defendants, who are likely to
suffer little hardship, on account of the Trial Court having
permitted the amendment, the costs to be imposed should have
been for an amount of Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.2,000/-.
8 As such, this petition is partly allowed only to the extent of
increasing the costs from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The plaintiffs
shall deposit an additional amount of Rs.3,000/- before the Trial
{5}
wp 2672.16.odt
Court, within four weeks from today, which can be withdrawn by
the defendants in equal proportions. Failing to do so, would dis-
entitle the plaintiffs from amending their plaint.
9 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE , J)
vbd
