Leal Developers v. Archie Julius Silveira And ORS

Arun Sankpal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1811 OF 2025 Leal Developers a Partnership Firm, through its Partner, Lisbon Pascal Colaco ..Petitioner

Versus

Archie Julius Silveira & Ors

...Respondents

Mr. A.S. Peerzada, with Shamiyana H, for the Petitioner.

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED :

11th FEBRUARY 2025 P.C.:

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2.

The challenge in this Petition is to an Order dated 10th September 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Vasai, whereby an Application preferred by the Respondent-legal representative of the Plaintiff who passed away on 21st March 2024, to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff on record came to be allowed. ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL 3.

The substance of the challenge on behalf of the Petitioner is that ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.02.14 16:38:43 +0530 while permitting the legal representatives to be brought on record, the learned Civil Judge also permitted the said legal representatives to carry out amendment in the Plaint as shown in paragraph 9 of the Schedule-A appended to the said Application.

1/3

4.

The learned Counsel submitted that the proper course would have been to bring the legal representatives on record and thereafter an application for amendment in the Plaint ought to have been filed. It was forcefully submitted that since legal representatives were not parties to the suit they could not have sought amendment in the Plaint. 5.

So far as the Application to bring the legal representatives on record, it appears that the said Application was preferred within the statutory period of limitation from the date of death of the original Plaintiff. The trial court has recorded a finding that the persons who were sought to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased Plaintiff were the legal representatives of the Plaintiff. 6.

The submission on behalf of the Petitioners that the Court would not have permitted the legal representatives to amend the Plaint by the very Application by which they sought their impleadment, is required to be appreciated from the perspective as to whether the said course has caused any substantial prejudice to the Defendants. 7.

It is not the case that opportunity of hearing was denied to the Petitioners-Defendants. The trial court has also considered the objection raised by the Defendants to the amendment in the Plaint. The trial court found that the averment sought by way of proposed amendment was in the nature of subsequent events. It is trite that the Court is required to take cautious cognizance of the subsequent events. 2/3

8.

Therefore, on the substance of the matter, the Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. As regards the correctness of the procedure adopted by the learned Civil Judge it does not appear that the said course has caused irretrievable prejudice to the Defendants. 9.

This, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with such order which otherwise does not cause any substantial prejudice to the Defendants.

10.

Hence the Petition stands dismissed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 3/3