B. R. Films v. Rukmini K. Iyer

11. ia 1968.20.doc Urmila Ingale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1968 OF 2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 533 OF 2018 B.R.Films ....Applicant/ Petitioner Vs.

Mrs.Rukmini Iyer ..... Respondent Mr.Rajesh Bhosale, for the Applicant/ Petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Shimpi, for Respondent.

CORAM :

M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE :

22nd JANUARY, 2021 P.C. :

.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2.

Interim application is fled for amendment of the Petition. Vide the interim Application for amendment, the Applicant - original Petitioner wants to incorporate a plea in the Petition that the Respondent - workman was an employee of M/s.B.R Ads which is a partnership frm and not an employee of the Petitioner -frm. My attention is invited to the written statement. Learned Counsel for workman submitted that this is not the stand taken in written statement.

1/2

11. ia 1968.20.doc 3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently urged that the amendment be allowed as the Respondent - workman can always fle a response to the said amended plea and no prejudice thereby will be caused to Respondent - workman.

4.

I fnd that the entire reference always proceeded on the footing that Respondent - workman is an employee of B.R. Films. As this was never the plea in the written statement, in my opinion, it is not now open to the Petitioner to take up a new plea for the frst time in this Petition. Hence, Interim Application is rejected (M.S.KARNIK, J.) Urmila P.

Ingle by Urmila P.

Ingle Date:

2021.01.22 17:34:58 +0530 2/2