Back
2010 Supreme(Bom) 1395
BOMBAY HIGH COURT AT PANAJI, GOA
A.P. LAVANDE, J.
Smt. Savita Morajkar and others – Petitioners
Versus
Shri Ganba Fati Fal Dessai - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 103 of 2010
Decided On : 29th September, 2010
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, for the petitioners
Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, for the respondent.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 - Maintainability of petition - Petitioner submits that judgment related to jurisdiction of High Court under Section 115 of CPC - As such not attracted in present case as petitioner filed petition challenging order passed by civil Judge allowing application for amendment impugned order liable to be set aside on ground that trial Court has not given any reason while allowing amendment applicator - Trial Court bound to give reason while disposing application of a mendments - Order impugned set aside - Matter remanded to trial Court to decide in accordance with law.
A.P. Lavande, J.-Heard Mr. Usgaonkar learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Rodrigues advocate for the respondent.
2. Mr. Rodrigues, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Bakshi and others v. Dharam Dev and others, 2002 (2) SCC 2. Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment relates to jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of CPC and as such is not attracted in the present case since the petitioner has filed writ petition challenging order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Quepem in Special Civil Suit No.3/2005/A allowing the application for amendment dated 23.9.2010. I am of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in the case of Prem Bakshi is not attracted in the present case since the petitioner has filed writ petition challenging order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the trial Court allowing the amendment application.
3. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.
4. Learned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments on merits. However, I deem it not necessary to go into the merits of the case since I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the trial Court allowing the amendment application is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that absolutely no reasons are given by the trial Court while allowing the amendment application. The trial Court was bound to give reasons while disposing of the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 8.12.2009 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court to decide the application in accordance with law. In the result therefore the impugned order dated 8.12.2009 is quashed and set aside and the trial Court is directed to pass fresh order after hearing the parties in accordance with law.
6. It is made clear that all the rival contentions of the parties are kept open.
7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order, as to costs.
Writ petition dismissed.
