Bombay High Court
Pandurang S/O Gnpat Borkar vs Prithaviraj S/O Balkrushna ... on 19 January, 2018
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp5349.2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5349/2016
PETITIONER : Pandurang S/o Ganpat Borkar,
Aged about 54 years,
Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Lihigaon, Post- Dighori (Kale),
Tah. Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur
...V E R S U S...
RESPONDENT : Prithviraj S/o Balkrushna Borkar,
Aged about 46 years,
Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Lihigaon, Post- Dighori (Kale),
Tah. Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur
==================================
Shri D.C. Chahande, Advocate for the petitioner
None for the respondent
===================================
CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
th
DATED :- 19 JANUARY, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
None appears for the respondent, though served.
Heard Shri D.C. Chahande, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 23:04:12 :::
Judgment 2 wp5349.2016.odt
2] The petitioner has filed the civil suit praying for decree
for possession of the suit house and for permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from carrying out any construction over
the suit plot / house. This suit is dismissed by the trial Court. The
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is challenged by the
plaintiff before the District Court in appeal which is pending.
During the pendency of this appeal, the plaintiff filed the
application (Exh. 19) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure seeking permission to amend the plaint. By the
proposed amendment, the plaintiff intended to bring on record the
subsequent events. This application is rejected by the District
Court by the impugned order.
3] By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff wants to
bring on record the subsequent developments. According to the
plaintiff, during the pendency of the appeal before the District
Court, the defendant has sold the Gobar Gas plant and shifted his
belongings from the suit house to some other place, the house has
collapsed due to rains and the defendant has not been to the suit
property after shifting his belongings. I find that the proposed
::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2018 23:04:12 :::
Judgment 3 wp5349.2016.odt
amendment has nexus with the claim of the plaintiff as made in
the civil suit and therefore, the learned trial Judge should have
allowed the application (Exh. 19).
Hence, the following order is passed:-
O R D E R
1] The impugned order is set aside.
2] The application (Exh. 19) filed by the
petitioner-plaintiff is allowed.
3] The petitioner-plaintiff is permitted to
incorporate the proposed amendment in the plaint.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Ansari
