Bombay High Court
Sau. Rekha Purushottam Karale vs Shri. Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan ... on 12 June, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 1335
Author: Z.A. Haq
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp4040.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4040/2019
Sau. Rekha Purushottam Karale,
aged about 52 Yrs., Occu. Business,
R/o Rokadiya Nagar, Shegaon,
Tq. Shegaon Distt. Buldhana. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan
Shegaon, through its President,
at Post Shegaon, Distt. Buldhana.
2. Shiv Shankar S/o Sukhdev Patil,
Managing Trustee, Shri Gajanan
Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon,
Distt. Buldhana.
3. Shankar S/o Laxman Lipte
(Diwanji), Sevadhari of Shri Gajanan
Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Distt.
Buldhana.
4. Nilkantha S/o Shiv Shankar Patil,
Trustee, Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan,
Shegaon, Distt. Buldhana.
5. Pramod Vasantrao Ganesh Patil,
adult, Trustee of Shri Gajanan
Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Distt.
Buldhana.
6. Chandulalji Kisanlalji Agrawal,
adult, Trustee of Shri Gajanan
Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Distt.
Buldhana.
7. Kishor Trikamdas Tank,
adult, Trustee of Shri Gajanan
Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Distt.
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 05:32:20 :::
2 wp4040.19
Buldhana.
8. Govind Sukhadev Kalore,
adult, Trustee of Shri Gajanan
Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Distt.
Buldhana.
9. Ashok Trambakrao Deshmukh,
adult, Trustee of Shri Gajanan
Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Distt.
Buldhana.
10. Narayanrao Yadeorao Patil,
adult, Trustee of Shri Gajanan
Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Distt.
Buldhana.
11. Shrikant Shvishankar Patil,
adult, Trustee of Shri Gajanan
Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Distt.
Buldhana.
12. Visheshwar Shaligram Trikal,
adult, Trustee of Shri Gajanan
Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Distt.
Buldhana.
13. Pankaj Gajanan Shitut,
adult, Trustee of Shri Gajanan
Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Distt.
Buldhana.
14. Rameshchandra Champalal Dangra,
aged about adult, Trustee of Shri Gajanan
Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Distt.
Buldhana. ..Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri J.B. Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 12.6.2019.
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 05:32:20 :::
3 wp4040.19
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri J.B. Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents on caveat.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner / original defendant has challenged the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application (Exh. No.42) filed by her under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner / defendant prays that issues be recast.
4. With the assistance of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, I have gone through the pleadings in the plaint as well as in the written statement. As far as issue Nos.2 to 13 are concerned, they are not required to be recast or modified as the issues are framed keeping in view the pleadings / contentions of the parties.
5. As far as issue No.1 is concerned, it is on record that the plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant is a licencee as per the agreement dated 30 th April, 2012. The plaintiff has further pleaded that the agreement of licence dated 30th April, 2012 has expired. The defendant has pleaded that she is a tenant. ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 05:32:20 :::
4 wp4040.19 In view of the pleadings on record, in my view, issue No.1 is not framed correctly and it is required to be split in two parts. Hence, issue no.1 is deleted and substituted by issue Nos.1(a) and 1(b) as follows:
"1(a). Whether plaintiffs prove that defendant is its licencee as per the agreement dated 30th April, 2012 ?
1(b) Whether the defendant proves that she is a tenant of plaintiff ?"
6. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge refusing to recast issue No.1 is set aside. The impugned order passed by learned trial Judge refusing to recast other issues i.e. issue Nos.2 to 13 is maintained. The writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE Tambaskar.
::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 05:32:20 :::