Bombay High Court
Manisha R. Vadkhalkar vs Rajendra Anandrao Dalvi And Ors on 30 October, 2018
Author: R.D. Dhanuka
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka
VPH
913 - WP. 6489-18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 6489 OF 2018
Manisha R. Vadkhalkar ... Petitioner
Vs.
Rajendra Anandrao Dalvi & Ors. ... Respondents
***
Mr. Sachindra Shetye, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Girish Kedia, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
***
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 30, 2018
P.C.
1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the orders - (i) dated
15.11.2017 passed below Exhibit 109; and (ii) dated 28.3.2016
passed below Exhibit 104, by the learned Civil Judge, S. D. Palghar,
allowing two separate applications for amendment of the plaint,
filed by original defendant No. 11 (respondent No. 1 herein).
2. Original plaintiff Ramesh Anandrao Dalvi has filed a suit
for partition of the property. Defendant No. 11 has filed written-
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 00:06:17 :::
VPH
913 - WP. 6489-18
statement in the said suit and agreed for partition of the property.
It was case of defendant No. 11 that after the suit was filed in 2011,
defendant No. 1 filed an application for his transposition as plaintiff
No. 2 in the said Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 2011. The said
application was opposed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (original
defendant Nos. 1 to 4). Learned trial judge allowed the said
application (Exhibit 104) by an order dated 28 th March, 2016. The
said order has been implemented, and the original defendant No. 11
has been transposed as plaintiff No. 2.
3. Plaintiff No. 2 thereafter filed a fresh application on 5 th
July, 2016, inter alia praying for amendment of the plaint and to
make additional claims against defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The said
application was opposed by original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and came
to be allowed by order dated 15th November, 2017 passed below
Exhibit 109.
4. The petitioner has impugned both these orders by filing
this writ petition on 9th January, 2018. Learned counsel for the
petitioner (original defendant No. 3) submits that suit was for
2/7
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 00:06:17 :::
VPH
913 - WP. 6489-18
partition and no application for transposition could have been made
by defendant No. 11. He submits that not only said application
seeking transposition of defendant No. 11 as plaintiff No. 2 was
allowed by the learned trial judge, but also an application for
amendment (Exhibit 109) allowing the inclusion of additional
claims beyond the period of limitation.
5. Mr. Girish Kedia, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1
(original defendant No. 11 / plaintiff No. 2), on the other hand,
submits that since the original plaintiff No. 1 did not pursue the suit
and all the parties being senior citizens, he was required to make an
application for transposition. He submits that the said application
was rightly allowed by the learned trial judge by an order dated 28 th
March, 2016.
6. Insofar as application (Exhibit 109) is concerned, it is
submitted by the learned counsel that the original plaintiff No. 2
had already referred to the additional claim in the written-statement
filed by him. Since defendant No. 11 was transposed as plaintiff No.
2, he applied for amendment of plaint to insert additional prayers
3/7
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 00:06:17 :::
VPH
913 - WP. 6489-18
under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He
submits that the learned trial judge allowed the said application on
15th November, 2017, keeping the issue of limitation open.
7. The learned counsel invited my attention to the roznama
in Special Civil Suit No. 13/2011 filed by the original plaintiffs and
submitted that after 15th November, 2017 when the second
application for amendment was allowed, the matter appeared before
the learned trial judge on several occasions. He submits that
plaintiffs have paid the required additional court fee, in view of the
second amendment permitted by the learned trial judge. He
submits that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have taken several adjournments
from the trial court for filing additional written-statement. He
submits that the petitioners have suppressed from the trial court
that they had filed writ petition inter alia impugning the orders of
amendment passed by the trial court. He submits that since the
orders of amendments have been already implemented by his clients
and petitioners having taken several adjournments for filing
additional written-statement, this Court should not interfere with
4/7
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 00:06:17 :::
VPH
913 - WP. 6489-18
the order passed by the learned trial judge. He submits that the
issue of limitation is already kept open, the ad-interim order passed
by this Court shall stand vacated.
8. It is not in dispute that the suit is filed by the original
plaintiffs for partition and accounts. Defendant No. 1, who had filed
written-statement had also admitted the relief of partition in the
written-statement, however, subject to accounts. The application
for transposition filed by defendant No. 11 was disposed of by the
trial court on 28th March, 2016. The said order was not immediately
challenged by the petitioner. Defendant No. 11 filed application
(Exhibit 109) on 5th July, 2016 inter alia seeking amendment of
plaint to include certain claims. The said application was allowed
on 15.11.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute
that defendant No. 11, who was transposed as plaintiff No. 2 has
paid additional court-fee, in view of second amendment permitted
by the learned trial judge. A perusal of roznama clearly indicates
that the matter has been adjourned from time to time for filing
additional written-statement of the petitioners (original defendant
5/7
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 00:06:17 :::
VPH
913 - WP. 6489-18
Nos. 1, 3 & 4) at the request of the petitioners.
9. Insofar as issue of limitation raised by the petitioners is
concerned, a perusal of order dated 15.11.2017 passed below
Exhibit 109 clearly indicates that said issue of limitation is kept
open. Most of the parties in this matter are senior citizens and some
of them are above 80 years. The suit is of 2011. In these
circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned
orders passed by the learned trial judgment. It is made clear that
merely because amendments are permitted by the learned trial
judge, contents thereof are not accepted by the petitioners. The
contentions in respect of merits of the additional claims and issue of
limitation raised by the plaintiffs in the suit are kept open. I,
therefore, pass the following order.
ORDER
(a) The writ petition is dismissed.
(b) The petitioner shall file additional written-statement within six weeks from today. It is made clear that no further extension will be granted. Copy of the said additional written-statement shall be served on the 6/7 ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 00:06:17 ::: VPH 913 - WP. 6489-18 plaintiffs simultaneously.
(c) The learned trial judge is directed to frame additional issues based on the amended plaint as well as on amended / additional written-statement, within two weeks from the date of filing additional written- statement by defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
(d) Both the parties are directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments before the trial court.
(e) Hearing of the suit is expedited. The learned trial judge shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit within 12 months after filing of the additional written-statement.
Sd/-
[R. D. DHANUKA, J.] Vinayak Halemath 7/7 ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 00:06:17 :::