Bombay High Court
Smt. Kusum Wd/O Vivekanand ... vs Damodhar Parshuram Chawale And ... on 12 January, 2018
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp2521.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2521 OF 2017
1. Smt. Kusum Vivekanand Chawale,
Aged about 50 years, Occupation: Private
Medical Practitioner,
2. Ku. Madhuri D/o. Vivekanand Chawale,
Aged about 32 years, Occupation: Education
3. Shubham S/o. Vivekanand Chawale,
Aged about 28 years, Occupation: Education
All R/o. Yatra Ward, Warora, Tahsil : Warora,
Distt.: Chandrapur.
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Damodhar Parshuram Chawale,
Aged about 75 years, Occ. : Cultivation,
2. Sau. Vimal Damodhar Chawale,
aged 70 years, Occu. : Cultivation,
3. Ganesh S/o. Damodhar Chawale,
aged 30 years, Occu. : Cultivation,
Nos. 1 and 3 are R/o. Ekno, Tahsil :
Warora, District : Chandrapur.
4. Sau. Beby Dilip Datarkar,
Aged about 45 years, Occ.: Household,
R/o. Temurda, Tahsil : Warora,
District : Chandrapur.
5. Western Coalfields Limited,
Majari Area, through its Chief General
Manager, at Kusna, Tahsil : Warora,
District : Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2018 01:20:25 :::
Judgment 2 wp2521.17.odt
6. Sau. Swati Amrut Kuchankar,
aged 47 years, Occ. : Service,
R/o. Kisan Ward No.2, Behind
Tahsil Office Rajura, Tah. Rajura,
District : Chandrapur.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Ms Kirti Satpute, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri A.P. Thakre & Shri N.S.Rahagude, Advs.for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 & 6.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JANUARY 12, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the trial
Court by which the application field by them seeking permission to amend
the plaint is rejected.
4. The petitioners have filed civil suit praying for decree for
partition, separate possession and other ancillary reliefs. The petitioner No.1
claims to be the widow of Vivekanand Chawale and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3
are daughter and son, respectively. Respondent No.2-Vimal is mother in law
Judgment 3 wp2521.17.odt
of the petitioner No.1. Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 are defendants in the
civil suit along with respondent No.2-Vimal.
It is submitted that the plaintiffs and the defendants have
amicably worked out the matter and Compromise Agreement dated 30 th
October, 2017 is filed before the trial Court. The learned advocate appearing
for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 has submitted that they have no
objection for allowing the plaintiffs to amend the plaint.
6. Considering the nature of the dispute, relation of the parties and
the settlement between the parties, as submitted, the following order is
passed:
i) The impugned order is set aside.
ii) The application (Exh.201) filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs is
allowed and they are permitted to amend the plaint.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances,
the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
