PRABHAKAR GANGADHAR BHINGARDIVE Vs. PADMAKAR GANGADHAR BHINGARDIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

(2.) Petitioner assails order dtd. 15/9/2022 passed by the 10th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar on application below Exhibit 98 in R.C.S. (Special Civil Suit) No. 88 of 2020 thereby rejecting his application for amendment of plaint. By that application, he sought to add para No. 6A to the plaint to bring on record the events of the defendant No. 1 carrying out construction over the suit property. The application is rejected as the trial in the suit had commenced and the plaintiff could not show due diligence required under Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "Code").

(3.) Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Kothari, the learned counsel would submit that the issue of defendant No. 1 carrying out construction on the suit property was specifically highlighted for seeking temporary injunction and considering that aspect, temporary injunction is already granted in favour of the petitioner. He therefore submits that the factum of defendant No. 1 carrying out construction on the suit property has already been a subject matter of controversy atleast in the application for temporary injunction. The same needs to be incorporated in the plaint as well. Mr. Kothari relies upon the judgment of this Court in Rashed Ali Vs. Avni Ventruers and others reported in .