Shalini Ghatate Vs Bata RCS 115 of 2022 - LT

Workspace 'Page1' in 'Shalini Ghatate Vs bata RCS 115 of 2022'
Page 1 (row 1, column 1)
Client Brie ng 1. The Applicant (a) Miss.

Sulbha Goaplrao Ghatate (b) Sau Sushma
Mohorir are not signatory to the
Application. 2. The Application is signed
by (c) Mr. Satish Gopal Ghatate, who was/
is power of attorney holder of Late Shalini
Ghatate. 3. The Will or Probate is not
attached with the Application in respect of
disputed property. 4. The documents
relating to transfer of disputed property in
the name of applicants is not attached . 5.
The Pan Card or adhaar card of applicants
are not attached with the Application. 6.
There no declaration /truth statement that
there no other legal heirs of Late Mrs.
Shalini Gopal Ghatat
-Document-2.docx, p.1
fi
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Thursday, April 04, 2024
Printed For: Rajeshree .
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com/
TruePrint™ source: Supreme Court Cases, © 2024 Eastern Book Company. The text of this version of
this judgment is protected by the law declared by the Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B.
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 Friday, April 05, 2024
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1 paras 61, 62 & 63.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1196
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa

(BEFORE C.V. BHADANG, J.)
Harinder Pal Singh Sandhu and Another …

Petitioners;
Versus
M. John Amaro Fernandes and Others …
Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 351 of 2018
Decided on June 11, 2018
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Adv. Jatin Ramaiya for the Petitioners;
Adv. Ashwin D. Bhobe for Respondent nos. 1–3 & 5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C.V. BHADANG, J.:— Leave granted to show the respondent no. 6 as
deceased and being survived by other respondents. The necessary
correction to be carried out forthwith.
2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 5 waives service. Heard finally by consent of
parties.
3. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 7/12/2017 (Below
Exhibit D-32) by which, the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs
seeking permission to file additional written statement has been
dismissed on the ground that on a singular date i.e. 28/4/2016, there
was no plea from the petitioners (defendants) to file additional written
statement.
4. In this case admittedly the plaint came to be amended. The
additional written statement. is sought to be filed by way of a
consequential amendment to the plaint. Normally in such a case where
there is a consequential amendment to the written statement, (in
pursuance of an amendment to the plaint), the same has to be allowed,
to the extent it is consequential in nature.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the
petitioner needs to be granted permission to place the additional
written statement on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners
states that there are no new facts or pleas introduced by way of
additional written statement and the written statement is strictly by
way of a consequential amendment necessitated by the amendment to
the plaint. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is hereby set aside.
(iii) The application Exhibit D-32 is allowed as prayed.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TruePrint™ source: Maharashtra Law Journal, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shalini Ghatate Vs Bata RCS 115 of 2022 - LT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Shalini Ghatate Vs Bata RCS 115 of 2022 - LT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shalini Ghatate Vs Bata RCS 115 of 2022 - LT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Workspace 'Page1' in 'Shalini Ghatate Vs bata RCS 115 of 2022'

Page 1 (row 1, column 1)

Client Brie ng 1. The Applicant (a) Miss.

2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1196

In the High Court of Bombay at Goa

Harinder Pal Singh Sandhu and Another …

You might also like