Amendment in written statement incorporating subsequent event is permissible

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 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT NAGPUR

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.81 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION

NO.98 /2013 (D) .

 Digambar  Maroti Amle, Vs  Shantabai Ramkrushna Girhe,

CORAM:

R.C.CHAVAN AND

PRASANNA B.VARALE, JJ.

DATED : 4th APRIL, 2013.

Citation;2014(3) ALLMR176

1. 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.

Print Page