Siddharth Prasanna Munot And Anothers v. Bina Prasanna Munot And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9999 OF 2015 1.

Siddharth Prasanna Munot, Age: 33 years, Occu: Business, R/o : Survey No. 75, Plot No. 15, Zilla Parishad Colony, Agarkar Mala, Station Road, Ahmednagar 2.

Sau. Bakul Vaibhav Takalkar, Age: 35 years, Occu: Household, R/o : Flat No. 302, Mangalmurti Apartment, Behind Bajaj Allianz Office, Delhi Gate, Ahmednagar ..PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1.

Smt. Bina Prasanna Munot, Age: 50 years, Occu: Household, R/o : C/o Shri Laxminarayan Hiralal Karwa, Flat No. 38/2, Gujrath Colony, Vishwesh Society, Kothrud, Pune-29 2.

Branch Manager, Bank of India, Ahmednagar 3.

Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chaupati Karanja, Ahmednagar 4.

Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Burudgaon Branch, Ahmednagar 5.

Branch Manager, Ahmednagar Co-op Bank, Chitale Road, Ahmednagar 6.

Branch Manager, Bank of India, 1st Floor, 70-80, M.G. Road, Mumbai-40023

(2) 7.

District Development Manager, National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development District Ahmednagar, Through Maharashtra Regional Office, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005 8.

Branch Manager, Nagar Urban Co-op Bank, Ahmednagar ..RESPONDENTS Mr S. S. Bora, Advocate for petitioners CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 17th November, 2015 ORAL ORDER :

Heard Mr Bora, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-defendants.

2.

Mr Bora, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionersdefendants would urge that the application (Exh.151) for amendment of plaint, in Regular Civil Suit No.70 of 2008, came to be allowed by order dated 7th August, 2015, passed by Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ahmednagar, which is objected by the present petitioners-defendants, on the ground that the amendment is nothing but renewing earlier prayer. According to him, the application is filed with an intention to protract the proceedings.

(3) 3.

Having perused the plaint and the contents of the amendment application, which is allowed by order dated 7th August, 2015, in my opinion, it will be appropriate to reject the present petition, as the amendment sought for appears to be germane to the cause and the Court below has rightly applied its mind.

4.

Thus, the petition fails and stands rejected with no order as to costs. (N.W. SAMBRE, J.) amj