Advocates:
['SM BHANGDE', '', 'C V KHADSE', 'SUNIL S SHINDE', 'P D SHARMA', '', 'SAYLI V KULKARNI', 'PRATEEK D SHARMA', 'DUJENDRA KUMAR H SHARMA', 'CHANDRASHEKHAR H SHARMA']

1/22 WP3395.20.odt-Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 3395 OF 2020

PETITIONERS :-

1.Smt. Farzana Begum W/o Mirza Shabir

Baig, Aged about 49 years, Occu.:

Household, R/o Mata Mandir Galli, Killa

Road, Mahal, Nagpur-32.

2.Shri Anwar Baig S/o Mirza Yusuf Baig,

Aged about 59 years, Occu.: Business,

R/o Killa Gate, Mahal, Nagpur-32.

3.Shri Sabir Baig s/o Basir Baig,

(Mentioned as Shadique Baig by plaintifff

in Plaint and Appeal Memo), Aged about

54 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Mata

Mandir Galli, Killa Road, Mahal, Nagpur-

32.

4.Shri Wahid s/o Mirza Yusuf Baig, Aged

about 45 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Killa

Gate, Mahal, Nagpur-32.

5.Shri Shahid Baig s/o Mirza Yusuf Baig,

Aged about 45 years, Occu.: Business,

R/o Killa Gate, Mahal, Nagpur-32.

(Original Defendans as per R.A.)

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENT :-

Bhartiya Vaidyak Samanvay Samiti, C/o

Shri Ayurved

Mahavidyalaya

Dhanwantari Marg, Hanuman Nagar,

Nagpur-440009, through its Secretary,

Dr.Govind Prasad Upadhaya s/o Madhav

Prasad Upadhaya, aged 65 years.

(Original Plaintiff as per R.A.)

KHUNTE

2/22 WP3395.20.odt-Judgment

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. S.M.Bhangde, counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. P. D. Sharma, counsel for the respondent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 02.07.2021.

DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 17.07.2021.

J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally.

2.

The petitioners are the original defendants and they

are aggrieved by order dated 10/12/2020, passed by the Court of

7^th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur (Trial Court),

whereby an application for amendment of plaint filed on behalf of

the respondent (original plaintiff) has been allowed. The

petitioners claim that the said application ought not to have been

entertained by the Trial Court, for the reason that it was filed

when the suit had reached at the stage of final arguments. It is

further contended that allowing the amendment amounts to

changing the very nature of the suit.

3.

The facts in brief leading to filing of the present writ

petition are that the respondent-Trust filed suit for possession and

KHUNTE

3/22 WP3395.20.odt-Judgment

perpetual injunction against the petitioners herein, seeking a

decree of possession and a perpetual injunction restraining the

petitioners from interfering with or causing any disturbance to

dispensary run by the respondent-Trust, owner of the disputed

plot. The respondent-Trust stated before the Trial Court that it

runs an Ayurvedic College and that it had purchased land adjacent

to the premises, where it has been running the Ayurvedic College

and Hospital. The respondent-Trust claimed that it had purchased

the suit property, bearing NMC House No.423, by a registered sale

deed dated 17/02/1965. According to the respondent-Trust, the

petitioners on 09/07/2013, illegally broke open the lock on the

structure erected by the respondent-Trust, leading to filing of the

aforesaid suit for possession and perpetual injunction, as also

initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

4.

The petitioners filed their written statement claiming

that they have been in possession of House No.421/A and that the

respondent-Trust was confusing this property with the property

allegedly owned by it. It was specifically stated that the petitioners

have no concern with NMC House No.423 and that the

respondent-Trust has filed the suit on the basis of

mis-identification of the property. While taking the aforesaid

KHUNTE

4/22 WP3395.20.o