Bhimaraya Mallappa Kapale v. Siddappa Bhimraya Kapale & Ors.

By this petition, the defendant in Reg. Civil Suit No.37 1999 before learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mangalwedha exception passed learned Judge allowing amendment plaint carried written statement filed. The petitioner - defendant raised defence written statement plaintiff Nos.3 4 relinquished a document 7th

1988. By application amendment July, 22nd September, 2005, plaintiff sought declaration said document dated 7th July, 1988 is bogus, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. . Learned counsel for the petitioner states that amendment unnecessary deciding controversy suit, assails passed on the ground that the learned Trial Judge should not have allowed this belated amendment. : 2 : . prayer whereby (d) The first contention has to be rejected because plaint sought partition property plaintiff Nos.3 4 wanted 1/5th property. The petitioner’s defence Para 9 4 written statement plaintiff Nos.3 relinquished share. In adjudicate entitlement plaintiff partition property, necessary plaintiff amendment of the plaint assailing the document dated 7th July, 1988. . The only grievance that the petitioner can legitimately amendment plaint sought Though written statement learned Judge should filed. consideration aspect matter, belated amendment caused petitioner, be duly considered at the time of final disposal of the suit. . In view of this, the petition does not make any ground interference exercise jurisdiction Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is consequently dismissed. CHAVAN, J.) (R.C. CHAVAN, J.) (R.C. CHAVAN, J.) (R.C.