Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6341
BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Bapusaheb Madhavrao Bhavar – Appellant
Versus
Sunita Dilip Dube – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.10745 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Tambe Rahul A
For the Respondents:
The court permits amendments to align with the actual dispute whilst imposing costs for undue delays in proceedings.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petitioner challenges an order rejecting an amendment application under the procedural laws applicable in civil suits. Facts of the Case: The petitioner sought to amend the plaint to include an agreement dated 5.7.2008, asserting its relevance to the suit.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the necessity of the amendment yet criticized the petitioner's delay in filing it during the prolonged litigation.
Issues: The court framed the issue surrounding the execution of the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of allowing amendments to resolve actual disputes, while also stressing the need for cost penalties due to the petitioner's delay in the proceedings.
Result: The order dated 3.10.2022 is set aside, allowing the amendment while imposing costs of Rs.25,000 on the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the lower court's order for amendment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. necessity of amendment for resolving real questions of controversy. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's order allowing amendment and imposing costs. (Para 5) |
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 3.10.2022 passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Sangamner, thereby rejecting his application for amendment.
2. On 14.10.2022 notices for fnal disposal have issued to respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5. Statement of the learned counsel for petitioner was also recorded that the only contesting respondents are respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5 and that the rest of the respondents are formal ones. Offce report shows that notices have been served on respondent nos.1,2, 3-A to 3-C and 5, however none appears for respondents. Considering the fact that suit is already at the stage of arguments and proceedings of the suit have been stayed by order dated 14.10.2022, it would be in the interest of justice to decide the petition fnally rather than giving any further opportunity to respondent nos.1,2, 3-A to 3-C and 5.
3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner. By way of amendment, petitioner/plaintiff desired to bring on record averments relating to agreement dated 5.7.2008. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that ownership of road about which declaration is sought in the plaint has been admitted in that agreement dated 5.7.2008 and that therefore it is necessary in the interest of justice to get that amendment on record.
4. It appears that in paragraph no.12 of the written statement that defendant nos.1 to 3 have referred to agreement dated 5.7.2008 terming the same as illegal and not binding on them. Thus, the issue of execution and effect of agreement dated 5.7.2008 is already the subject matter of controversy in the suit. In my opinion therefore, amendment would be necessary for the parties to determine the real question of controversy between the parties.
5. What remains now is conduct of petitioner/plaintiff. Suit is fled in the year 2007. Agreement is executed during pendency of suit on 5.7.2008. Plaintiff/petitioner however fled an application to bring that document on record only on 14.7.2022. By the time the application for amendment was fled, evidence of both sides was already over and the suit was fxed for fnal arguments on four different dates. Undoubtedly, fling of an application for amendment at that stage has delayed the hearing and fnal decision of the suit which is pending for the last 15 years. For such conduct of the petitioner, though amendment sought is necessary for the purpose of determining real question of controversy between the parties, exemplary costs are required to be saddled on petitioner for delaying the decision of the suit. I accordingly proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
i. The order dated 3.10.2022 passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge Sr. Division, Sangamner on application at Exhibit 102 in RCS No.203 of 2007 is set aside.
ii. Application fled by petitioner/plaintiff at Exhibit 102 for amendment of the plaint stands allowed in terms of prayers made therein.
iii. Concerned defendants would get liberty to fle additional written statement to amended plaint.
iv. Petitioner/plaintiff to pay the costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) to defendant nos.1,2, 3-A to 3-C and 5 within a period of four weeks from today. Costs to be deposited in the trial Court, with liberty to defendant nos.1,2, 3-A to 3-C and 5 to withdraw the same.
v. With the above directions, writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
