MADHURI VASANTRAO NANEKAR Vs. VARSHA VINOD DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Thakare, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. 6132/2006 seeks leave to delete the name of respondent No. 3 on the ground that he has not sought any relief in the proposed amendment as against respondent No. 3. Leave to delete name of respondent No. 3 is granted at his own risk.

(2.) Rule in both the petitions. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of the counsel for the respective parties. Both these petitions challenge the common order passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division on 28.08.2006 below application at Exh.-47 in Special Civil Suit No. 34/2004. By the impugned order, the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint is allowed partly. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the impugned order partly rejecting his application for amendment, filed Writ Petition No. 6132/2006. Defendant No. 1, being aggrieved by grant of permission to amend the plaint partly filed Writ Petition No. 5751/2006. As stated above, since both these petitions arise out of common order, they are being disposed of by common order.

(3.) Sau. Varsha Vinod Deshpande, the original plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 34/2004 against Sau. Madhuri Vasantrao Nanekar, the defendant No. 1. Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are the real sisters. Defendant No. 2-Vinayak and defendant No. 3-Arvind are purchasers from defendant No. 1-Sau. Madhuri. The suit property originally belongs to Keshavraj, father of plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The suit is filed for injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering in the plaintiff's possession over the suit property and for setting aside the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3.