Nirmalabai W/O. Arunpant Ingole (Died), Through Lrs Arun S/O. Pundlikrao Ingole And Others v. Narendra S/O. Sahdeorao Gajbe

wp.6137.15 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.6137 of 2015 (Nirmalabai Ingole [dead], through L.Rs.

vs.

Narendra Sahdeorao Gajbe) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

CORAM

: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2015.

Heard Smt. S.W. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 09/09/2014 passed by the trial court rejecting the application for addition of a party.

The suit for declaration and cancellation of saledeed, dated 08/04/2002 was filed in the year 2003. On 01/04/2014, when the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant, the plaintiff moved application below Exh.90 seeking to add a party. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that same was moved at a late stage and there was no justification for the same.

Smt. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that presence of said party was necessary as it was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was

wp.6137.15 2/2 indulging in money lending transactions and the party, who proposed to be added, had provided funds.

Perusal of application below Exh.90 does not indicate the date when the plaintiff got knowledge about involvement of the party proposed to be added. Suit was filed in the year 2003 and, therefore, the trial court was justified in observing that the application was moved at a late stage. Moreover, presence of party proposed to be added does not appear to be necessary and it is always open for the plaintiff to bring on record necessary evidence with regard to money lending transactions. Hence, there is no reason to interfere in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE *sdw