{"id":96614,"date":"2009-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-21T19:43:11","modified_gmt":"2016-01-21T14:13:11","slug":"prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari vs Bhika on 23 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari vs Bhika on 23 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                 1\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n               WRIT PETITION NO.3807 OF 2004.\n                                with\n            CIVIL APPLICATION Nos.7349\/2005 & 6166\/2007\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n                                 IN\n                   WRIT PETITION NO.3807 OF 2004.\n\n     Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari,\n     aged 54 years, occupation agril.,\n\n\n\n\n                           \n     r\/o Old Jalna,\n     Dist. Jalna.                    .... PETITIONER.\n               ig                    [ Ori. Plaintiff ]\n\n                             VERSUS\n             \n     1. Bhika s\/o Banda Dhage,\n     aged 52 years,\n\n     2. Sunil s\/o Eknath Dhage,\n     aged 29 years,\n      \n\n\n     Both agriculturists, r\/o\n   \n\n\n\n     village Shiraswadi,\n     taluka & Dist. Jalna.              .... RESPONDENTS.\n                                            [ Defendants ].\n\n                            ...\n\n\n\n\n\n     Shri R.D. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner.\n     Mrs. Manjusha A. Deshpande, Advocate holding for\n     Shri A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents.\n                            ...\n\n                                      CORAM:S.S. SHINDE,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                            DATE :    23rd SEPTEMBER, 2009.\n\n     ORAL JUDGMENT:\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     1.     This writ petition is filed challenging the<\/p>\n
     order dated 12.12.2003 below Exh.25 in R.C.S. No.<\/p>\n
                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
     370\/2002 by which the application filed by the<\/p>\n
     petitioner       herein      for   amendment         of     the     plaint<\/p>\n
     under Order VI Rule 17 proviso of the Code of<\/p>\n
     Civil Procedure has been rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     2.     The    background         facts    of    the      case      are     as<\/p>\n
     under:\n<\/p>\n
            The petitioner herein filed R.C.S. No.370 of<\/p>\n
     2002     on    29.10.2002          for     issue       of      perpetual<\/p>\n
     injunction          restraining         the     respondents             from<\/p>\n
     obstructing in his possession over agricultural<\/p>\n
     land Gat No.224 admeasuring 3 H. 73 R. situated<\/p>\n
     at Siraswadi, taluka and District Jalna.\n<\/p>\n
            In     the    said    suit,       the    respondents           filed<\/p>\n
     their written statement on 9th December, 2002 and<\/p>\n
     denied the claim of the petitioner herein.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     It is further case of the petitioner that<\/p>\n
     during      pendency        of   the     suit    and      after       going<\/p>\n
     through the facts stated in the written statement<\/p>\n
     and      after        perusing           village          record          and<\/p>\n
     consolidation         record,      the    petitioner          claims       to<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
     have known that despite securing permission under<\/p>\n
     Section      47   of   the   Hyderabad       Tenancy        Act      from<\/p>\n
     Deputy \/Collector, Jalna vide Exh.C, the owners<\/p>\n
     did not execute sale deed and since respondents<\/p>\n
     had left the village and petitioner was minor<\/p>\n
     during relevant period, the petitioner could not<\/p>\n
     bring suit for specific performance of agreement<\/p>\n
     for sale executed in favour of Ratanlal by the<\/p>\n
     owners.     igSo he applied for amendment of plaint<\/p>\n
     vide Exh.25 on 5.9.2003 before commencement of<\/p>\n
     evidence, to seek relief of specific performance<\/p>\n
     of agreement for sale, to implead Tulsabai Bandu<\/p>\n
     Dhage as defendant no.3 and to plead material<\/p>\n
     facts suitably as stated in para a4 of Exh.25.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    On   12.12.2003        after    hearing       both      parties,<\/p>\n
     the trial Judge concluded that the amendment was<\/p>\n
     at belated stage and it will change the nature of<\/p>\n
     suit and the cause of action and rejected the<\/p>\n
     application       filed      by   the   present         petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     Hence, this petition.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    This writ petition was heard for admission<\/p>\n
     and   this    Court    was    pleased     to     issue      Rule       and<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
     interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) of<\/p>\n
     the petition.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    The    learned       Counsel    for      the      petitioner<\/p>\n
     submitted that the plea of oral mortgage relied<\/p>\n
     upon by the respondents is not in conformity with<\/p>\n
     any law and supports the agreement for sale which<\/p>\n
     came to knowledge of the petitioner after going<\/p>\n
     through the written statement at Exh.B before the<\/p>\n
     trial Court and after perusal of village record<\/p>\n
     and   consolidation         record.           It     is       further<\/p>\n
     submitted that the application for amendment was<\/p>\n
     filed before the commencement of the trial and<\/p>\n
     addition     of   relief    of     specific     performance           of<\/p>\n
     agreement     for   sale     could    not     be     held      to     be<\/p>\n
     belated      because       title     was      denied        by       the<\/p>\n
     respondents for the first time when they prayed<\/p>\n
     for possession of the land before the Tahsildar<\/p>\n
     and pleaded non execution of sale deed in the<\/p>\n
     written statement.          It is further submitted that<\/p>\n
     when permission to alienate disputed property was<\/p>\n
     granted under Section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy<\/p>\n
     Act   by    the   competent      authority      and      it     is    an<\/p>\n
     admitted position that Ratanlal during his life<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
     time since 1963 until his death in 1984 and after<\/p>\n
     his        death,     petitioner            has       been         enjoying<\/p>\n
     possession of disputed land lawfully in pursuance<\/p>\n
     of the agreement for sale, the petitioner was<\/p>\n
     entitled to amendment sought which did not change<\/p>\n
     the nature of the suit and even if it did, it was<\/p>\n
     just and necessary to be allowed for adjudication<\/p>\n
     of real point in controversy and for avoiding<\/p>\n
     multiplicity  ig    of    litigation.                  It     is    further<\/p>\n
     submitted      that      the    Consolidation            Officer         after<\/p>\n
     holding necessary inquiry made relevant entries<\/p>\n
     about       possession         of    the      petitioner            int      he<\/p>\n
     Consolidation Record and as such, the same was<\/p>\n
     not objected to since 1965 to 2003 for a period<\/p>\n
     of    38    years   and    as       such    respondents            were     not<\/p>\n
     entitled       to   oppose          amendment        sought         by      the<\/p>\n
     petitioner.         Therefore,             the     learned          Counsel<\/p>\n
     submitted that amendment as prayed should have<\/p>\n
     been allowed by the trial Court.                         It is further<\/p>\n
     submitted that no reasons are assigned by the<\/p>\n
     trial Court while rejecting the prayer of the<\/p>\n
     petitioner for amendment of plaint.                          The learned<\/p>\n
     Counsel      invited      my    attention          to     the      impugned<\/p>\n
     order passed by the trial Court and submitted<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
     that the impugned order is without assigning any<\/p>\n
     reasons and to resolve the controversy in the<\/p>\n
     suit, the amendment should have been allowed. The<\/p>\n
     learned     Counsel          appearing          for     the    petitioner<\/p>\n
     invited    my        attention      to     the        contents      of     the<\/p>\n
     application          which    was     filed       before       the     trial<\/p>\n
     Court     for       amendment       of     the        plaint    and      more<\/p>\n
     particularly, paragraph 3 of the said application<\/p>\n
     and submitted that sufficient cause was shown by<\/p>\n
     the petitioner herein before the trial Court as<\/p>\n
     to why the matter could not be brought in the<\/p>\n
     plaint in spite of due diligence.                             The learned<\/p>\n
     Counsel,       in    support     of       his    contention,          placed<\/p>\n
     reliance on the reported judgment of the Apex<\/p>\n
     Court     in    the       case   of       Vidyabai        &     ors.      vs.<\/p>\n
     Padmalatha          and<\/a>   anr.   [2009(1)         ALL     MR     471]      and<\/p>\n
     submitted that the amendment should be liberally<\/p>\n
     allowed.        Even the amendment can be allowed at<\/p>\n
     the appellate stage if case is made out by the<\/p>\n
     party.\n<\/p>\n
     7.   The        learned       Counsel           appearing        for       the<\/p>\n
     respondents vehemently opposed the petition and<\/p>\n
     submitted that the trial Court has given reasons<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
     in support of the impugned order in paragraphs 6,<\/p>\n
     7     8,    and         11    of     the        impugned           judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore,the contention of the petitioner that<\/p>\n
     the impugned order is without assigning reasons<\/p>\n
     is required to be rejected.                      The learned Counsel<\/p>\n
     for   the       respondents         further       submitted          that      no<\/p>\n
     sufficient            cause    has    been        disclosed           in      the<\/p>\n
     application below Exh.25 by the petitioner that<\/p>\n
     he was prevented by sufficient cause to bring the<\/p>\n
     matter      in        the     main    plaint.               Therefore,the<\/p>\n
     application for amendment of the plaint does not<\/p>\n
     fulfill         the    requirement        of      the     provisions           of<\/p>\n
     Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
     It is further submitted that the trial Court has<\/p>\n
     rightly held that if the amendment application is<\/p>\n
     allowed then the entire nature of the suit will<\/p>\n
     be changed and it will cause prejudice to the<\/p>\n
     respondents.           The learned Counsel for respondents<\/p>\n
     submitted that the original suit is for perpetual<\/p>\n
     injunction and by way of amendment, new prayer is<\/p>\n
     being      tried        to     be    introduced            for       specific<\/p>\n
     performance which would change the nature of the<\/p>\n
     suit. She further submitted that the application<\/p>\n
     filed      by    the     petitioner        for      amendment          of     the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
     plaint is time barred. She invited my attention<\/p>\n
     to the contents of the application for amendment<\/p>\n
     and submitted that no sufficient cause has been<\/p>\n
     shown in the application so as to specify the<\/p>\n
     requirement of Rule 17 proviso of Order VI of<\/p>\n
     C.P.C.     He supported his contention by relying on<\/p>\n
     reported     judgment    of     Apex       Court       in      case      of<\/p>\n
     Ashutosh Chaturvedi v. Prano Devi and Ors.<\/a> [AIR<\/p>\n
     2008 SC 2171] and Chanderkanta Bansal v. Rajinder<\/p>\n
     Singh    Anand<\/a>    [AIR   2008       SC   2234].           Relying        on<\/p>\n
     Ashutosh Chaturvedi (supra), the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
     for   respondents     submitted          that    the     application<\/p>\n
     for amendment if brought at belated stage, it is<\/p>\n
     required to be rejected.                  The learned Counsel<\/p>\n
     placed reliance on the Head Note of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
     judgment    and    submitted    that        preferential            right<\/p>\n
     can ordinarily be claimed within one year.\n<\/p>\n
           Relying on the case of Chanderkanta Bansal<\/p>\n
     (supra), the learned Counsel submitted that the<\/p>\n
     proviso to Rule 17, Order VI of C.P.C. Limits the<\/p>\n
     power to allow amendment after commencement of<\/p>\n
     trial but grants discretion to the Court to allow<\/p>\n
     amendment.        Therefore, the Counsel would submit<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
     that    the    power     to     allow          amendment             after<\/p>\n
     commencement     of    the     trial       is      restricted           by<\/p>\n
     proviso.        The     learned          Counsel          therefore,<\/p>\n
     contended that the writ petition deserves to be<\/p>\n
     rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     8.     I have given anxious consideration to the<\/p>\n
     rival    submissions     advanced         on     behalf         of     the<\/p>\n
     petitioner  ig and    respondents        and,      I     am     of     the<\/p>\n
     considered view that the impugned judgment and<\/p>\n
     order below Exh.25 needs no interference for the<\/p>\n
     following reasons:\n<\/p>\n
            The perusal of para 6 of the judgment would<\/p>\n
     show    that    the    trial       Court        has       considered<\/p>\n
     documents on record produced on behalf of the<\/p>\n
     defendants,     possession         of     the       plaintiff           is<\/p>\n
     unlawful and plaintiff has no title to the suit<\/p>\n
     land    and    is     also    not       entitled           to        claim<\/p>\n
     possession.     In paragraph 7 the trial Court has<\/p>\n
     recorded that in 7\/12 extracts, there is note<\/p>\n
     against section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The contention of the plaintiff that he came to<\/p>\n
     know about the real facts of the case only after<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
     reading the contents of written statement does<\/p>\n
     not appear true.          It appears that plaintiff has<\/p>\n
     suppressed      the    real     facts   which       he     could       not<\/p>\n
     continue to do so upon the disclosure of the same<\/p>\n
     through written statement.                  In paragraph 8 the<\/p>\n
     trial Court has recorded the submissions of the<\/p>\n
     Counsel appearing for the plaintiff.                       The trial<\/p>\n
     Court in paragraph 9 has recorded submissions of<\/p>\n
     the Advocate appearing for the defendants that<\/p>\n
     the    claim    of     specific       performance,          which       is<\/p>\n
     sought    to    be     added    by    way     of    amendment,          is<\/p>\n
     necessarily based on new cause of action and the<\/p>\n
     amendment changes the cause of action and the<\/p>\n
     same   cannot    be     allowed.        The    trial       Court       has<\/p>\n
     considered number of reported judgments of this<\/p>\n
     Court as well as the Honourable Apex Court and<\/p>\n
     ultimately, in paragraph 11, has reached to the<\/p>\n
     conclusion      that    in     case   proposed       amendment          is<\/p>\n
     allowed then it will entirely change nature of<\/p>\n
     the suit and also it will cause prejudice to the<\/p>\n
     defendants      and      ultimately,          the     trial        Court<\/p>\n
     rejected   the       application      for     amendment         of     the<\/p>\n
     plaint.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
     9.    On careful perusal of the impugned judgment<\/p>\n
     and order, it clearly appears that the matter<\/p>\n
     which the petitioner wanted to bring by way of<\/p>\n
     amendment in the plaint was within the knowledge<\/p>\n
     of the petitioner on the date of filing the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     The trial Court has rightly recorded in regard to<\/p>\n
     the above point in para 7 that the 7\/12 extract<\/p>\n
     clearly shows a note against Section 47 of the<\/p>\n
     Hyderabad Tenancy Act and, therefore, the matter<\/p>\n
     which he wanted to bring by way of amendment was<\/p>\n
     within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time<\/p>\n
     of filing the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     10.   The Court has also recorded the arguments<\/p>\n
     advanced     by     the     learned      Counsel          for        the<\/p>\n
     respondents that in case amendment is allowed,<\/p>\n
     then it would be entertaining fresh cause, which<\/p>\n
     would prejudice the interest of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
           The    original       suit     was      filed         by       the<\/p>\n
     petitioner     for      perpetual       injunction.                  The<\/p>\n
     amendment which the petitioner wanted to bring to<\/p>\n
     the   plaint      was     for   specific       performance            of<\/p>\n
     contract to execute a sale deed regarding the<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
     suit land.     Therefore, the original suit was for<\/p>\n
     perpetual injunction and by way of amendment, the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff    introduced    new   prayer          for      specific<\/p>\n
     performance.        Therefore,        certainly           if       the<\/p>\n
     amendment is allowed, it would change nature of<\/p>\n
     the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     11.   When the application for amendment of the<\/p>\n
     plaint was filed, the issues were already framed.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, unless the requirement under Rule 17<\/p>\n
     proviso of Order VI of C.P.C. is                satisfied, it<\/p>\n
     was not permissible for the trial Court to allow<\/p>\n
     the amendment as prayed for by the petitioner –\n<\/p>\n
     plaintiff.     On careful reading of the application<\/p>\n
     for amendment of the plaint, it clearly appears<\/p>\n
     that no sufficient cause was shown in the said<\/p>\n
     application to come to the conclusion that in<\/p>\n
     spite of due diligence shown by the petitioner,<\/p>\n
     the matter could not be brought in the original<\/p>\n
     plaint itself.\n<\/p>\n
           The   Honourable    Supreme      Court       in     case      of<\/p>\n
     Vidyabai & ors.(supra), in paragraph 7 of the<\/p>\n
     judgment, held as under:\n<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                        13<\/span><\/p>\n
         “By    reason    of       the       Civil      Procedure           Code
\n         (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002), the<\/p>\n
         Parliament inter alia inserted a proviso to
\n         Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as
\n         under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                “Provided         that        no     application              for
\n                amendment      shall         be     allowed       after       the<\/p>\n
                trial has commenced, unless the court
\n                comes to the conclusion that in spite<\/p>\n
                of due diligence, the party could not
\n                have     raised         the       matter       before         the<\/p>\n
                commencement of trial.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
         It    is   couched       in    a    mandatory         form.          The
\n         court’s       jurisdiction            to     allow         such       an
\n         application         is        taken        away      unless          the<\/p>\n
         conditions precedent therefor are satisfied,<\/p>\n
         viz., it must come to a conclusion that in
\n         spite of due diligence the parties could not
\n         have       raised        the         matter         before           the<\/p>\n
         commencement of the trial.”<\/p>\n
         In paragraph 8 of the said judgment, the<\/p>\n
     Supreme Court has       held thus,-\n<\/p>\n
         “8.    ……       The date on which the issues
\n         are framed is the date of first hearing.
\n         Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
\n         envisage       taking          of        various        steps         at
\n         different stages of the proceeding.                            Filing<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                            14<\/span><\/p>\n
            of an affidavit in lieu of examination in<\/p>\n
            chief of the witness, in our opinion, would
\n            amount to `commencement of proceeding’.”<\/p>\n
     12.    Therefore, on careful reading of paragraphs<\/p>\n
     7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear<\/p>\n
     that   the   jurisdiction              of    court       to     allow        the<\/p>\n
     application       for     amendment           is     not       permissible<\/p>\n
     unless     the    condition           precedent         under       Rule      17<\/p>\n
     proviso of Order VI of C.P.C. is satisfied i.e.<\/p>\n
     the court must come to the conclusion that in<\/p>\n
     spite of due diligence the party could not raise<\/p>\n
     the matter before commencement of the trial.                                 The<\/p>\n
     Apex Court has further held that Order VI, Rule<\/p>\n
     17 proviso is coached in mandatory form.\n<\/p>\n
            I   find        considerable            substance            in       the<\/p>\n
     arguments        advanced         by        the     learned          Counsel<\/p>\n
     appearing        for    respondents           that       the      amendment<\/p>\n
     application       has     not     been       filed      at     appropriate<\/p>\n
     stage and the same was filed at belated stage.\n<\/p>\n
     13.    Taking      overall        view       of      the      matter,         it<\/p>\n
     appears that the application filed below Exh.25<\/p>\n
     for    amendment        of      the        plaint      does       not      show<\/p>\n
     sufficient        cause      as       required        under        Rule       17<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                       15<\/span><\/p>\n
     proviso    of     Order     VI   of      C.P.C.        and     also       the<\/p>\n
     application was filed at belated stage.                                 That<\/p>\n
     apart, if the amendment application is allowed,<\/p>\n
     certainly it would change nature of the suit as<\/p>\n
     well as cause prejudice to the defendants.                                The<\/p>\n
     trial    Court,    on     the    strength         of     the     evidence<\/p>\n
     brought on record by the parties as well as after<\/p>\n
     appreciating      the     contentions          of     the    respective<\/p>\n
     parties    to
\n                 ig  the     suit,     as      come      to    the     correct<\/p>\n
     conclusion.           The    trial        Court        has      taken        a<\/p>\n
     reasonable and possible view of the matter.                                No<\/p>\n
     interference       is     called         for     in      extraordinary<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of<\/p>\n
     the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
     14.     Therefore, writ petition is dismissed.                          Rule<\/p>\n
     is discharged.          Interim relief stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n
     Civil Applications stand disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 [ S.S. SHINDE, J ]<\/p>\n
                                      …..\n<\/p>\n
     PLK\/*<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span>
\n                                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
                           \/\/ REPORTABLE \/\/<\/p>\n
                      WRIT PETITION NO.3807 OF 2004
\n                                   with<\/p>\n
              CIVIL APPLICATION Nos.7349\/2005 & 6166\/2007
\n                                    IN
\n                     WRIT PETITION NO.3807 OF 2004.\n<\/p>\n
                                    Date of decision :23.09.2009<\/p>\n
                    For approval and signature.\n<\/p>\n
     THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE.\n<\/p>\n
     1.<\/p>\n
          Whether Reporters of Local Papers
\n          may be allowed to see the judgment?\n<\/p>\n
                                                       }
\n                                                       }     Yes.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not?       }     Yes<\/p>\n
     3.   Whether Their Lordships wish to see
\n          the fair copy of the judgment?               }     No.<\/p>\n
     4.   Whether this case involves a substantial     }<\/p>\n
          question of law as to the interpretation     }
\n          of the Constitution of India, 1950 or        }
\n          any Order made thereunder?                   }     No.<\/p>\n
     5.   Whether it is to be circulated to the        }
\n          Civil Judges?                                }     No.<\/p>\n
     6.   Whether the case involves an important       }<\/p>\n
          question of law and whether a copy of        }
\n          the judgment should be sent to Mumbai,       }
\n          Nagpur and Panaji offices?                   }     No.<\/p>\n
            [Prakash Kadam]
\n          Private Secretary to
\n          the Honourable Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:06:44 :::<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari vs Bhika on 23 September, 2009 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3807 OF 2004. with CIVIL APPLICATION Nos.7349\/2005 & 6166\/2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3807 OF 2004. Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari, aged 54 years, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-96614","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari vs Bhika on 23 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari vs Bhika on 23 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-21T14:13:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari vs Bhika on 23 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-21T14:13:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2517,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari vs Bhika on 23 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-21T14:13:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari vs Bhika on 23 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari vs Bhika on 23 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari vs Bhika on 23 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-21T14:13:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari vs Bhika on 23 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-21T14:13:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009"},"wordCount":2517,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009","name":"Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari vs Bhika on 23 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-21T14:13:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prakash-ratanlal-ratansa-kasari-vs-bhika-on-23-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prakash Ratanlal @ Ratansa Kasari vs Bhika on 23 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96614","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=96614"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96614\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}