Civil Petition No. 2463 of 2007 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Hence the following order is passed: (i) The impugned order dated 5th January 2007 passed by the learned trial Judge below Application Exh.60 is set aside. (ii) The 1st Respondent is permitted to withdraw the Application at Exh.60 with 3 : ::: 3…
Judgment
Shri S.H.Joshi for the Petitioners. Shri Rajiv Patil for the Respondent No.1. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. CORAM : 20th June, 2007. DATED : 20th June, 2007. DATED : 20th June, 2007. DATED P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 5th January 2007 passed by the learned trial Judge below the Application at Exh.60 filed by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. Various contentions were raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners as regards the impugned order by which the Application at Exh.60 for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. When the attention of the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff was invited to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the Application at Exh.60, he sought time to take instructions from the 1st Respondent.
Today after taking instructions from the 1st Respondent, he stated that though the averments in 2 : ::: 2 : 2 : paragraph 4 of the application Exh.60 may not be happily worded, it was never the intention of the 1st Respondent to make any allegation against any Advocate. He submitted that as paragraph 4 of the said Application is not happily worded, he may be permitted to withdraw the Application at Exh.60 with liberty to file a proper application seeking amendment to the plaint. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners on the said prayer.
In my view the prayer made by the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent is reasonable and deserves to be granted. In view of the said prayer, the impugned order will have to be set aside with liberty to the 1st Respondent to take out fresh application. However, all contentions of the parties on merits of such fresh application will have to be kept open.
Operative part
Hence the following order is passed:
(i) The impugned order dated 5th January 2007 passed by the learned trial Judge below Application Exh.60 is set aside.
(ii) The 1st Respondent is permitted to withdraw the Application at Exh.60 with 3 : ::: 3 : 3 : liberty to file a fresh application for amendment of the plaint.
(iii) All contentions of the parties on such Application for amendment, if made, are expressly kept open.
(iv) It is made clear that this Court has made no adjudication on merits of the amendment sought by the 1st Respondent in Application at Exh.60.
(v) Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Judge. Judge. Judge.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 20 Jun 2007. The bench was ABHAY S OKA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.