Tilakraj Bhagawansinh Rewadi And Others v. Bhaskar Sunderayya

1 16.wp6053.2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6053/2019 Tilakraj Bhagawansinh Rewadi & Oth ..VS..

Bhaskar Suderayya - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A. A. Dhawas, Advocate for the petitioners CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 3 rd September 2019 Heard.

2] The respondent (Plaintiff) has filed civil suit against the petitioners praying for decree for partition and separate possession of his half share in the property alleged to have been purchased jointly by father of petitioners and respondent. The trial of the civil suit progressed and after recording of evidence of plaintiff was completed, the petitioners (defendants) had filed the application (Exh. 142) under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to amend the written statement to bring on record subsequent events relating to partition amongst the defendants by themselves. This application is dismissed by the impugned order.

3] After examining the plaint, written statement and the application (Exh.142), I find that the proposed amendment is not necessary for adjudication of the

2 16.wp6053.2019 controversy in the civil suit. The plaintiff is seeking decree for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit property. The interse partition amongst the defendants is not relevant for examining the claim of the plaintiff. In addition to this, learned trial judge has rightly observed that the defendants have not been able to wriggle out of the bar created by the proviso below Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with impugned order.

Hence, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

(Z.A.HAQ, J.) Namrata