Anil Chandrakant Shivajirao ... vs Suresh Wamanrao Muley
2017 Latest Caselaw 7996 Bom

                                         1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO.12243 OF 2017

1.        Anil s/o Chandrakant @ Shivajirao Muley,
          Age-44 years, Occu-Agriculturist and Business,
          R/o A Building, Flat No.4, Prabhatnagari,
          Opp.Shahnoormiyan Darga, Aurangabad,

2.        Kusumbai w/o Chandrakant @ 
          Shivajirao Muley (died),
          Age-65 years, Occu-Household,
          R/o Ram Mandir Galli, Tq.Georai, 
          Dist.Beed, 

3.        Jayshree w/o Vivek Deshmukh,
          Age-38 years, Occu-Household,
          R/o Daya Bhagwant Niwas, 
          Ambad Naka, 
          Near Swayanwar Mangal Karyalaya,
          Tq. and Dist. Jalna                          -- PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Suresh Wamanrao Muley,
Age-64 years, Occu-Agriculturist and
Pensioner, R/o Georai,
Tq.Georai, Dist. Beed,
At present Plot No.53, N-5, CIDCO,
South Sawarkar Nagar, Aurangabad                       -- RESPONDENT 

Mr.M.G.Deokate, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.V.Natu, Advocate for the respondent.

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

DATE : 10/10/2017

khs/OCT. 2017/12243-d

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12/06/2017 by

which the Trial Court has rejected application Exh.130 praying for

leave to amend the written statement.

3. I have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the

respective sides.

4. The petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 3. Defendant No.1 had

prayed for seeking an amendment to the written statement. The

proposed amendment is set out in Exhibit 130. The Trial Court has

rejected the application solely on the ground that though the suit is

pending from 2005, the petitioner is seeking an amendment after

about 11 years from the date of the filing of the written statement on

17/06/2006.

5. With the assistance of the learned advocates, I have compared

the proposed amendment in Exhibit 130 with the written statement

khs/OCT. 2017/12243-d

filed by the petitioners. Barring the first 8 lines of the proposed

paragraph 18(V), the rest of the proposed amendment paragraphs are

already set out in the written statement in a different language.

What is set out in the proposed amendment is differently worded in

the written statement.

6. Considering the same and since the recording of evidence has

commenced, I do not find that the petitioner could be precluded from

introducing the first 8 lines of the proposed paragraph No.18(V), in

the written statement. The rest of the proposed paragraphs on

internal page Nos.2, 3 and 4 of Exh.130 are not necessary as they

already find place in the written statement in a different language.

7. Considering the above, this petition is partly allowed. The

impugned order dated 12/06/2017 is set aside and Exhibit 130

stands partly allowed to the extent of permitting the petitioners to

amend the written statement by including the first 8 lines (not

sentences) under paragraph No.18(V). Amendment to be carried out

within the period of 3 (three) weeks from today.

8. Since RCS No.213/2005 is almost 12 years old, the Trial Court

shall proceed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in

khs/OCT. 2017/12243-d

any case within a period of 1 year from today. If any litigating side

seeks an adjournment on unreasonable or trivial grounds, the Trial

Court would be at liberty to reject the said application as well as

impose costs, if deemed appropriate.

9. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

( Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

khs/OCT. 2017/12243-d