Bhimashankar Shejul Died v. Madan Dattatraya Solanke
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. No reason is given for not filing the application for amendment earlier. Even otherwise the amendment sought is to introduce the names of witnesses in whose presence the amount was given. The same would be a matter of proof. The petitioners can lead evidence…
Judgment
Shri S. J. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N. B. Khandare, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. PER COURT : . The petitioners are the defendants who have filed counter claim. After the plaintiff led his examination in chief, the petitioners filed an application for amendment trying to suggest the names of witnesses in whose presence the petitioners have paid the amount. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition.
Shri Salunke, the learned counsel for petitioners submits 2 wp 3367.12 that, the only ground given by the Trial Court while rejecting the application is that the application is filed at belated stage after the trial has commenced. According to the learned counsel the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure does not bar jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining the application even after the trial has commenced. The Court can still consider the same. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India reported in 2012 All SCR 2191 and in a case of Surender Kumar Sharma Vs. Makhan Singh reported in 2009 All SCR 2452.
According to the learned counsel said amendment is relevant and necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute.
Shri Khandare, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the order and submits that after the Trial has commenced the application was given. No due diligence is shown and the Trial Court has rightly rejected the same.
I have perused the application for amendment. The application for amendment does not whisper about due diligence. 3 wp 3367.12 It is not the case that fact sought to be amended came to the knowledge of petitioners subsequently.
No reason is given for not filing the application for amendment earlier. Even otherwise the amendment sought is to introduce the names of witnesses in whose presence the amount was given. The same would be a matter of proof. The petitioners can lead evidence, which evidence the Court can consider on its own merits. The writ petition as such is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 12
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 11 Sep 2012. The bench was S V GANGAPURWALA.
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.