Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 207 (BOM)

Sunil Kumar v. Parasnath Singh

2016-02-01

S.B.SHUKRE

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 6 and 7. None appears for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 who, as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on instructions, are not the contesting parties before the Trial Court. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the contesting parties. 3. What is sought to be incorporated in the plaint by way of amendment is only the pleadings that there is an intention on the part of respondent no. 1 to sell the residential bungalow and the plaintiffs apprehend that respondent no. 1 may create third party rights in the suit property. 4. It is seen from the impugned order that such a proposed amendment has been refused by the Trial Court only on the ground that it would relate back to the cause of action of the suit. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even if it is held to be relating back to the date of the application, the purpose of the petitioners would be served and in any case, by such an amendment, no prejudice would be caused to the contesting respondents. 5. So far as the issue of relating back to the date of amendment is concerned, the contesting defendants should not have any objection and indeed the learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 6 and 7, on instructions, submit that they do not have any objection. However, they submit that all their contentions may be left open to be decided on merits. 6. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The amendment application is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-each to respondent nos. 1 and 2, the main contesting respondents, within four weeks from the date of the order. The amendment now being carried out shall relate back to the date of the amendment application. Amendment be carried out within four weeks. All contentions of the parties on merits of the case are left open. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No costs.