Bombay High Court
Prakash S/O Vishandas ... vs Saraju S/O Vasantrao Mandape And ... on 12 December, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi
1 1wp7950.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7950/2022
(Prakash s/o Vishandas Karmachandani Vs. Saraju s/o Vasantrao Mandape and others)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------
Mr. B.N. Mohta, Advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATED : 12/12/2022.
Heard.
2. The petitioner(plaintiff) raises a challenge to
the order dated 13/10/2022 passed on Exhibit No. 21
in Regular Civil Appeal No. 453/2016, whereby the
plaintiff's application for amendment to the plaint has
been rejected at the appellate stage.
3. The petitioner/plaintiff has initially filed
Regular Civil Suit No. 165/2012, seeking a declaration,
possession and injunction. The said suit was dismissed
by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated
04/05/2016. Being aggrieved the petitioner/plaintiff
has filed First Appeal No. 453/2016, in which sought
amendment which was rejected.
4. The plaintiff had purchased subject property
from Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 in the year 1998. Likewise,
defendant No.1 has also purchased the same property
2 1wp7950.2022
from defendant Nos. 2 to 5 in the year 2012. Though
the petitioners(plaintiffs) sale-deed was prior in point of
time, the trial Court has discarded the plaintiff's sale-
deed, for the reasons stated in para-14 of the judgment.
Besides other reasons, it is one of the factore weighed to
the trial Court for suspecting the sale-deed that, though
the property situates at Taluka-Kalmeshwar, as to why
the plaintiffs got registered the sale-deed in the Sub-
Registrar Office of Nagpur.
5. In order to explain the said circumstance,
during pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff has filed an
amendment application to contend that Nagpur Sub-
Registrar is competent to get executed the sale-deed of
the land failing at Kalmeshwar Tahsil. It is the plaintiff's
contentions that he has obtained information under RTI
Act, about the competency of the Nagpur Sub-Registrar
and thus he desire to bring said aspect, by way of
introducing the amendment.
6. As a matter of fact, the trial Court has not
stated that Nagpur Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction to
get registered the Sale-deed of the land situated at
Kalmeshwar. The trial Court has assigned several
reasons in para-14 of the judgment so as to discard the
plaintiff's sale-deed. One of the reason is that when the
land situates at Kalmeshwar, why the party came to
Nagpur for registration of sale-deed, despite the
availability of Sub-Registrar at Kalmeshwar. Thus, it
3 1wp7950.2022
does not mean that there is dispute about the
competency of the Sub-Registrar at Nagpur and
therefore, the purpose of the amendment is
unwarranted.
7. The petitioner can bring to the notice of the
appellate Court, the reply received under the Right to
Information Act at the time of arguments.
In view of this, the writ petition carries no
merits. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
Steno copy of this order is granted.
(VINAY JOSHI, J.)
rkn
