Prakash Shriram Rane And Another vs Rameshwar Motiram Wadal
2017 Latest Caselaw 7226 Bom

                                  1
                                                               wp2157.15.odt

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

                    Writ Petition No.2157 of 2015

  1. Prakash Shriram Rane,
     Aged about 35 years,
     Occupation - Service.

  2. Bhivranbai Shriram Rane,
     Aged 75 years,
     Occupation - Household Work.

        Both R/o Chohatta Bazar, 
        Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.                       ... Petitioners/
                                                     Ori. Defendants

        Versus

  Rameshwar Motiram Wadal,
  Aged 65 years,
  Occupation - Agriculturist,
  R/o Chohatta Bazar,
  Tq. Akot, Dist. Akola.                             ... Respondent/
                                                         Ori. Plaintiff


  Shri N.A. Gawande, Advocate for Petitioners.
  Shri V.B. Bhise, Advocate for Respondent.


               Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

Dated : 15th September, 2017

Oral Judgment :

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

wp2157.15.odt

2. On 16-4-2015, this Court passed an order as under :

" Shri Gawande, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence led by the plaintiff is in conformity with the pleadings in the plaint and now by way of proposed amendment, the changes are proposed which would require an additional evidence to be led by the parties. He submits that the evidence is already closed and the matter is fixed for final arguments. He submits that this could not be allowed after the evidence of the parties is closed.

Issue notice for final disposal of the matter, to the respondent, returnable on 30.04.2015.

The respondent be served by taking hamdast and also to serve the respondent through his counsel appearing in the Trial Court.

In the meantime, the further proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No.116/2011 shall remain stayed."

wp2157.15.odt

3. The learned counsels appearing for the parties submit

that in place of Gat No.''180'', which, according to the

respondent/plaintiff, belongs to the Government, the

amendment proposed is that it should be read as Gat No.''178''.

The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the

plaintiff does not want to lead any additional evidence, though

in the evidence already led, it is Gat No.''180'', which is referred

to.

4. In view of this statement made by the

respondent/plaintiff, the petition is dismissed. The

respondent/plaintiff shall be bound by the statement.

5. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.

JUDGE.

Lanjewar