2014(3) ALL MR 176


Digambar S/O. Maroti Amle & Ors. Vs. Shantabai Ramkrushna Girhe

Writ Petition No. 98 of 2013

4th April, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. R.G. KAVIMANDAN
Respondent Counsel: Mr. VISHAL P. GANGANE

Civil P.C. (1908), O.6 R.17 - Amendment in written statement - Rejection of application - Legality - Amendment in W.S. sought to plea grant of succession certificate in some other proceeding - Succession certificate was granted in 1995 in favour of defendants - Plaintiffs questioned the same in appeal which was decided in 2008 - Amendment application filed after such decision in appeal, cannot be said to be afterthought or protracting the proceedings - Rejection of amendment application, improper. (Para 4)


R. C. CHAVAN, J. :- Heard.

2. Admit.

3. By consent, taken up for final hearing.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent - Ori. plaintiff states that he has no objection to the amendment proposed in para no.4 of the amendment application, whereby name of Ramdas Maroti Amle is sought to be added as a necessary party to the suit. In fact, the Hon'ble Single Judge had dealt with only this aspect of the amendment application and since the respondent himself concedes to the necessity of such amendment, the order to that extent would have to go. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, has objection to the amendment whereby the result of a case of grant of Succession Certificate is sought to be pleaded at the end of para no.19 of the written statement. The learned counsel states that he opposes this amendment since the order on the application for Succession Certificate was passed in the year 1995 when the suit was very much pending and therefore, that amendment could have carried out at that time. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the appellant did not hastily carry out this amendment because after the decision of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) in the application for Succession Certificate, the plaintiff questioned that decision before the High Court and the judgment of the High Court came in the year 2008 after the suit was decided and during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, it cannot be said that even this amendment was an after thought or was sought to be made to protract the proceedings. In view of this, the order impugned cannot be sustained. The order is, therefore, set aside and the writ petition No.98 of 2013 is allowed setting aside the order passed by the District Judge rejecting the application for amendment. That application Exh.16, in RCA No. 16 of 2005 is allowed.

Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Ordered accordingly.