Vatsalabai R Patil Since Dec Thr Lrs Rajendra G Patil Thr Poa Sheela R Patil v. Smt. Vimla Mehta Since Dec Thr Lrs.

27 WP-9466-2021.doc BDP-SPS-TAC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9466 OF 2021 BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2022.08.03 18:48:23 +0530 Vatsalabai R. Patil (since deceased) Through LR 1.1 Suhasini G. Patil (since deceased) Through LR 1.1A Rajendra G. Patil and Ors.

....Petitioners.

V/s Smt. Vimla Mehta (since deceased through LR) a. Jayantilal P. Mehta and Ors.

.... Respondents.

Ms. S.R. Patil, Constituted Attorney for the Petitioners. CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE: AUGUST 01, 2022 P.C.:- 1] This Petition is by the Petitioners who are Defendants to RAE Suit No.449/860 of 2006 which is for eviction on the ground of nonuser. It is claimed that Respondents-Plaintiffs were permitted to amend the suit which they have failed to and as such ApplicationExhibit-93 is taken out for dismissal of the suit. Such prayer is rejected vide impugned order dated 29th October, 2021. 2] Power of Attorney holder for the Petitioners/Defendants would 1/2

27 WP-9466-2021.doc urge that if amendment as was permitted by the Trial Court in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs is not carried out then such contemptuous act should invite consequences of dismissal of the suit. 3] I am afraid, there is no such provision in the Civil Procedure Code or Small Causes Courts Act to invoke powers of dismissal of suit on the ground of non-carrying out of amendment. In my opinion, Court below was justified in rejecting the prayer made in ApplicationExhibit-93 on the aforesaid count. At the most, failure of the Respondents/Plaintiffs in not carrying out amendment as was directed would entail consequences of ceasing of the right of the Respondents to carry out such amendment in future.

4] With the above observations, no case for interference is made out. Petition fails and same stands dismissed. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ) 2/2