Kiran Prabhakar Koli And Others v. Purushottam Bhagwan Sapkale

2025:BHC-AUG:13927

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 929 WRIT PETITION NO. 9276 OF 2024 KIRAN PRABHAKAR KOLI AND OTHERS

VERSUS

PURUSHOTTAM BHAGWAN SAPKALE ...

Mr. Anand I. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Sushilkumar H. Tripathi, Advocate for Respondent. ...

CORAM :

R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATE :

6th MAY, 2025 P.C.:- 1.

This petition takes exception to the order dated 13th March 2024 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in Special Civil Suit No.353 of 2004 in application below Exhibit-32 whereby, the Trial Court has allowed application filed by the Defendant for amendment to the written statement.

2.

Learned Advocate for the Petitioners makes statement, on instructions, that the Petitioners have no objection, if the subsequent fact of filing of R.C.S. No.10 of 2005 and the judgment passed therein, so also R.C.A. No.203 of 2011 and the judgment passed by the Appellate Court therein and pendency of second appeal before this Court, is brought on record by way of amendment. He, however, raises objection to the withdrawal of the admissions given in the written statement dated 14th December 2004 vide Exhibit-14.

3.

Learned Advocate for the Respondent submits that the statement made by Respondent-Original Defendant to the effect that he is not the owner of the property is not withdrawal of the admission but is a consequence of the order passed by the Appellate Court in R.C.A. No.203 of 2011. Thus, it is his contention that there is no reason to cause interference in the impugned order.

4.

There is no dispute about the fact that Special Civil Suit No.353 of 2004 came to be dismissed by the Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 7th January 2005. This dismissal of the suit is challenged by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.94 of 2016 (Old Case No.H.C. First Appeal No.964 of 2005). This appeal is decided on 1st July 2023, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is set aside with relegating the suit back to the Trial Court for its decision on merit.

5.

There is no dispute about the fact that Respondent-Original Defendant has filed written statement before the Trial Court vide Exhibit-14 which reads as under:- "१) वादींचेदाव्यातीलम्हणणेवमागणे, खरेदीखतकरूनमिमळणेबाबत्ቚतितवादीसकबूल आहे.

२) ्ቚतितवादीहेवादींनाखरेदीखतलिलहूननोंदूनदेण्यासपूव$हीतयारहोतेवआजही तयारआहे.

३) वादीम्हणतातत्या्ቚमाणेसौ्ቕाच्यारकमेतफरकअसूनवादीयांनी्ቚतितवादीस

खरेदीखताचेवेळीएकूणर्ሪमरूपये१७ल्ቌ्ቕावयाचीहोतीवआहे. रूपये१७ल्ቌ मिमळताचवादीहेखरेदीखतलिलहूननोंदूनदेण्यासतयारआहे. खरेदीखताचेकामीनारायण ቔኚयंबकजोशीतसेचत्याचेवारसयांचीसा्ቌघेण्याचीकोणतीहीकायदेशीरगरजनाही, कारण्ቚतितवादीहेदाव्यातीलमिमळकतीचेएकमेवमालकआहे. ४) वादीयांचीको्቏8 खच8 अथवाइतरखवा8बाबतवीकोणतीहीमिवनंती्ቚतिततवादीसमान्य नाही.

५) मे.

को्቏8 आदेशदेईलत्या्ቚमाणेवतेव्हा्ቚतितवादीवादीसखरेदीखतलिलहूनवनोंदून देण्यासतयारआहे."

6.

The written statement indicates that Defendant is ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner/Plaintiff. It is also specifically averred therein that the Defendant is the sole owner of the suit property.

7.

As against this, the amendment sought by Respondent/Defendant, which reads as under:- "३) ्ቚतितवादीचेपूव$चेमालकनारायण्ቔंबकजोशीयानेदाव्यातीलमिमळकत्ቨा ्ቚतितवादीकडूनगहाणखतसोडवूनकब्जामिमळणेकरिरतारे.मु.नं.१०/ २००५"

चादाखल केलाहोता.

तोदावामे.

को्቏ा8नेर्ቌकेलाम्हणूननारायण्ቔंबकजोशीनेत्यामिनकालामिवरू्ቍ मिद.अ.नं.२०३/ २०११त्याअमिपलाचामिनकालता.०८.०१.

२०१७रोजीहोवूनमे. जिजल्हा न्यायालयानेतेअपीलमंजूरकेलेव्ቨा्ቚतितवादीलावादातीलशेतजमीनीचेगहाणखत रिरडीमकरूनदेण्याचाहुकूमकेलाआहे.

त्यामिनकालामिवरू्ቍ्ቨा्ቚतितवादीनेमे. ना. उ्ሴ न्यायालयमुंबईखंडपीठऔरंगाबादयेथेदुसरेअपीलदाखलकेलेआहेवत्याचेकाम अ्ቕापसुरूआहे. [ अशापरिरቝኌOथतीत्ቚतितवादीहास्ቕाचेቝኌOथतीतदावामिमळकतीचापूण8 व एकमेवमालकरामिहलेलानाही.

तसेचजमीनीच्या७/ १२वरीलइतरह्ሪातनारायण्ቔंबक जोशीयांचेनांवकायमआहे.

त्यामुळे्ቨा्ቚतितवादीलादावामिमळकतीचेखरेदीखतकरून देण्याचाकोणताहीअतिPकाररामिहलेलानाही.

त्यामुळेदावामिमळकतीचेखरेदीखतमागण्याचा वादींनाअतिPकारनाही.

सबबयाकारणांचामिवचारहोवूनवादीचादावार्ቌहोणेसपा्ቔआहे. तसेचवादीचेमिदनांक१६.११.

२००४चेदै.

लोकमतलामिदलेल्याजाहीर

नो्቏ीसीस्ቚतितवादीनेमिद. २४.११.

२००४रोजी्ቚतितवादीचेवकीलअड.

जीतनपा्቏ील यांनापाठमिवलेलेजाहीरनो्቏ीसीसउ्ቈरतसेचवादीहापो्቏दुखीचेआजारानेआजारी असतांना्ቚतितवादीचेवकीलांनीत्यांचेघरीजावुनत्यांनालिलहुनमिदलेलीW.S. वाचूनन दाखवतात्यावरसहीघेतलीवतीदाखलकेलीआहे.

४) तरीमिवनंतीकी, वादीचादावाखचा8सहर्ቌकरण्यातयावा."] 8.

This amendment sought by the Defendant came to be allowed by the impugned order. Perusal of the amendment sought by the Defendant indicates that he is seeking withdrawal of his admission about being exclusive owner of the suit property and consent for passing decree in favour of the Petitioner/Plaintiff. 9.

Though, it was open for the Defendant to amend the written statement in order to incorporate subsequent events, it is wholly impermissible that the admissions given in the written statements are allowed to be withdrawn.

10.

In view of this, though, Respondent/Defendant was justified in incorporating the facts with regard to the Regular Civil Suit No.10 of 2005 and order passed therein, so also in R.C.A No.203 of 2011 and the fact about pendency of the second appeal in this Court, but he cannot be allowed to withdraw admissions. Hence amendment except bracketed portion as indicated in paragraph No.6 above can only be permitted to be retained.

11.

Hence, petition stands partly allowed. The order dated 13th

March 2024 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in Special Civil Suit No.353 of 2004 stands modified. Amendment is allowed, except for the bracketed portion as indicated hereinabove in paragraph No.6.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.) Tauseef