Shri. Narayan Bhagwan Rawool v. Ku. Reshma Govind Rawool Through P.O.A. Sou. Kamini C. Rawool And ORS

vks

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3338 OF 2016 Narayan Rawool ...

Petitioner V/s.

Reshma Govind Rawool Through P.O.A., Kamini Rawool and ors ...

Respondents Mr. Vinaay Kumar Omprakash Dubey, for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Warekar i/by Warekar and Warekar, for the Respondent No.4 CORAM : DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

DATE : 22nd MARCH, 2018.

P.C. :

1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.4.

2] By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.10.2015, passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Vengurla, below application at Exh.119 in R.C.S. NO.70 of 2006.

3] Application at Exh. 119 was filed by the present petitioner, who is one of the legal heirs of deceased defendant before the trial 1/3

Court, for review of the order passed below Exh.106. 4] Application at Exh.106 was filed by respondents for amendment in the plaint. The said application was allowed by the trial Court, vide its order dated 15.2.2012, directing the respondents to pay costs of Rs.3,000/- to the present petitioner before next date. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that respondents had not paid these costs of Rs.3,000/- before the next date which was 1st March, 2013 and despite that the trial Court has allowed the amendment to be carried out. Hence the petitioner had filed Application for review of the said order, which the trial Court has rejected by the impugned order.

5] It is brought on record that the respondent has paid costs of Rs.3,000/-, immediately on 15.3.2013 which was the next date after 1st March,2013. It was specifically stated therein that the costs remained to be paid due to inadvertence. The trial Court has allowed the said application, in the interest of justice. 6] Thus, once the trial Court has exercised its discretion and allowed the costs to be deposited even after the stipulated period, therefore, there is no substance raised in the grievance against the said order. The trial Court has exercised its discretion properly. It is also not the case that the order dated 15.02.2012, allowing application for amendment was subject to payment of cost, as a 2/3

condition precedent. In such situation, no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, rejecting petitioner's application for review.

7] The writ petition, therefore, being without merit, stands dismissed.

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] 3/3