(1)

914-WP-7532-2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.7532 OF 2013

TULSHIRAM YADAV PATIL

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

SHASHIKANT PANDHARINATH PATIL

AND OTHERS

..RESPONDENTS

…

Mr. L. V. Sangeet, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Sanket Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1

to 5.

…

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

DATED : 14^th JANUARY, 2022.

PER COURT:-

1.

The present petitioner is Original

Plaintiff. He has filed Suit for specific

performance of contract. The respondents filed

written statement. The petitioner/plaintiff led

his evidence. After the closure of the evidence of

Plaintiff, the Defendants also filed examination-

in-chief and thereafter, filed an application for

amendment. The application is allowed. Aggrieved

thereby, the present petition.

2.

Mr. Sangeet, learned counsel submits that,

respondents/defendants in the written statement

specifically admitted the Sauda Pavati. Now

amendment is taking away the admission given by

them in the written statement. The learned counsel

further submits that, admission cannot be retracted

(2)

914-WP-7532-2013

by an amendment and that too after the plaintiff

has closed his evidence.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner

relies on the following judgments:

1.

Janu Laxman Kumbhar Vs. Pandurang Laxman

Kumbhar reported in 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 159.

2.

Heeralal Vs. Kalyanmal reported in 1998 (1)

SCC 278.

4.

I have heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel

for respondent nos.1 to 5.

5.

It appears that, the plaintiff has closed

his evidence and thereafter, the present

application for amendment is filed. I would have

appreciated the arguments of Mr. Sangeet, learned

counsel for petitioner, had it been the case of

withdrawal of admission given in the written

statement. The defendants intended to introduce

paragraph no.22-A. By introducing paragraph 22-A,

the defendants only wanted to convey that, because

of recitals in the Sauda Pavati, the Sauda Pavati

is void ab initio. The defendants are not in any

way taking away the admission given by them or are

not denying the Suda Pavati even remotely. Only

legal submission is added that, the document is

void ab initio meaning thereby, document does not

have a legal existence. By an amendment the

defendants are not retracting any admission made if

any in the original written statement. By

(3)

914-WP-7532-2013

amendment also the defendants are not denying the

Sauda Pavati, but only a legal submission is being

made.

6.

In view of that, order of Trial Court is

not interfered with.

7.

Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(S. V. GANGAPURWALA)

JUDGE

Devendra/January-2022