SHESHRAO BHAURAO SABLE Vs. GANESH MAHADEORAO SABLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considering the nature of controversy, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tajne, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

(2.) The petitioner-original defendant has questioned the order dated 13-2-2006 passed below Exh. 77 in Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 2004 passed by 3rd joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akot, refusing him permission to amend written statement with a view to incorporate counter-claim.

(3.) The suit as filed is for declaration and perpetual injunction and in it the trial Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent No. 1-plaintiff. The case of the petitioner is that under the garb of that order, respondent no. 1-plaintiff has dispossessed him and he sought leave to amend written statement to point out such subsequent events and to incorporate counter-claim. By relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ganu Kisna Buradkar vs. Manik Kisna Buradkar and anr. , reported at 2003 (3) Mh. LJ. 218, the trial court has rejected that prayer.