Bombay High Court
Vishal Bhanudas Dhumal vs Shri. Santosh Gulabrao Konde And ... on 17 January, 2018
Bench: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1038 OF 2017
Vishal Bhanudas Dhumal, ]
Age : 30 Years, Occ. Agriculture & Trader, ]
R/at Datta Nagar, Ambegaon (BK), ]
Telco Colony, Jambhulwadi, Pune-400046. ] .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Santosh Gulabrao Konde, ]
Age : 32 Years, Occ. Agriculture & Trader ]
2. Ganesh Gulabrao Konde, ]
Age : 33 Years, Occ. Agriculture & Trader ]
3. Rupali Ganesh Konde, ]
Age : 33 Years, Occ. Household ]
4. Gulabrao Rambhau Konde, ]
Age : 66 Years, Occ. Agriculture & Service ]
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are residing at ]
Telco Society, Datta Nagar, Ambegaon (BK), ]
Pune - 400 046. ]
5. Sanjay Dattatray Kakade, ]
Age : 53 years, Occ. Agriculture & Trader, ]
R/at 1205, Kakade Capital, ]
Shivaji Nagar, Pune. ] .... Respondents
Mr. Rahul S. Kadam for the Petitioner.
Mr. Amogh P. Khodge for Respondent No.5.
Mr. A.R. Metkari, A.G.P., for Respondent No.3-State.
CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : 17 TH JANUARY 2018.
WP-1038-17.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, at the stage
of admission itself, by consent of Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Mr. Khodge, learned counsel for Respondent No.5, and
Mr. Metkari, learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.3.
2. By this Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 13 th October 2016 passed
below "Exhibit-77" in Regular Civil Suit No.872 of 2011 by the Joint
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune.
3. The application at "Exhibit-77" was filed by the Petitioner.
Petitioner is the Original Plaintiff. By this application, filed under Order
6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C., the Petitioner has sought amendment in the
plaint, in order to add the prayer clause in respect of which, according to
him, there were sufficient averments made in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of
the plaint and an issue to that effect was already framed. He has also
sought to introduce certain details about the 'Agreement of Sale'
pertaining to the said registered 'Sale Deed' dated 10th March 2011.
4. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that, it was
filed at a belated stage, after the trial has commenced.
WP-1038-17.doc
5. However, considering the fact that, in respect of the proposed
amendment to add the prayer clause, there are already sufficient
averments made in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the plaint and an issue to
that effect is also framed as "Issue No.4" by the Trial Court on 5 th October
2015 i.e. 'whether the Plaintiff proves that the Sale Deed dated 10 th
March 2011 executed by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of Defendant
No.5 is illegal and not binding upon them?', the proposed amendment is
not going to change the nature of the Suit and hence, in the interest of
substantive cause of justice, the Petitioner needs to be allowed to make
proposed amendment.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order
passed by the Trial Court is set aside. Petitioner to carry out necessary
amendment in the plait within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order by the Trial Court.
7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]
WP-1038-17.doc
