Aabasaheb Yadav Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

wp4254.17 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4254 OF 2017 AABASAHEB YADAV JADHAV

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Shinde S.K.

AGP for Respondents: Mr. S.N. Kendre Advocate for Respondents : Mr. A.M. Gaikwad .....

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.

DATED : 5th MARCH, 2018 PER COURT:- 1.

Heard finally with consent of the parties.

2.

I do not find any substance in the petition. The petitioneroriginal plaintiff has filed an application Exh.55 seeking amendment in the plaint at belated stage without any explanation. Admittedly, after the suit was posted for final hearing the petitioner-original plaintiff has filed an application No.55.

3.

On careful perusal of the plaint and the contents of application Exh.55, it appears that the main prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff is against the acquiring body seeking direction to pass the award. After closing of evidence, when the suit is posted for final hearing, the petitioner-plaintiff is seeking amendment in the plaint to the

wp4254.17 -2extent that till passing of the award, the acquiring body should not proceed with the construction work of the canal. I find that this particular amendment is unwanted and uncalled for when the petitioner-plaintiff way back in the year 2014 was permitted to amend the plaint and thereafter he had filed a pursis of closing evidence at Exh. 54. Thereafter, the petitioner-plaintiff got four adjournments under one or another pretext for arguing the matter finally. I find no fault in the impugned order. There is no substance in the writ petition. Writ petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. ( V. K. JADHAV, J.) rlj/