Dnyaneshwar S/O Pundlik Loharkar v. Mohan S/O Pundlik Lohakare And Others

(1) 950wp461.23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 461 OF 2023 Dnyaneshwar Pundlik Lohakare__ Vs. ___Mohan Pundlik Lohakare and ors --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.R.T.Anthony, Advocate for petitioner Mr. B.W.Patil, Advocate for respondents CORAM :

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 28/03/2023 1] Heard Mr. Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents.

2] The petition challenges the order below Exh.60 dated 14.7.2022, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint has been rejected.

3] Mr. Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendment seeks to bring on record the subsequent events, post the demise of the plaintiff no.1 on 24.4.2021, on account of her Will dated 24.11.2011 in favour of the plaintiff no.2, having come into effect. The rejection of the amendment is on the ground that the Will dated 24.11.11 does not make a mention of Survey No. 657/1. It is contended that schedule-F to the Will (pg.55) though makes a mention at Sr.No.1 of Survey No. 557/1, the boundaries of the

(2) 950wp461.23 property are of Survey No. 657/1 and therefore merely because there is an incorrect survey number mentioned, that would not change the identity of the property, which can be established by the boundaries.

4] Since the only reason in the impugned order is regarding the absence of Survey No. 657/1 and it is permissible to establish the identity of the property by the boundaries, in my considered opinion, the ground on which the application has been rejected does not stand to reason, considering which the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and application below Exh. 60 is allowed. The petitioner to carry out the amendment within the period of 15 days from today.

5] The petition is allowed in above terms. No costs.

JUDGE Rvjalit Digitally sign byRAJESH VASANTRAO JALIT Location: