Court : Mumbai Goa
..... . moji ram, air 1978 sc 484; (ii) pandit ishwardas vs. state of madhya pradesh and others, (1979) 4 scc 163 and (iii) haryana waqf board vs. shanti sarup and others, (2008) 8 scc 671. 13. on the contrary, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the prayer for amendment of the plaint and production of additional document ..... , rule 17 of c.p.c would not apply to this case as the suit was instituted prior to coming into force the amendment act, 2002. however, it is necessary to mention at this stage that the appellate court has not relied upon the said provisions, while passing the impugned order. that apart, the fact that the said proviso would not be ..... the petitioners have already examined mr. shyamlal r. vishvakarma (pw-4), whose evidence has been disbelieved by the trial court. the learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the hon'ble apex court in the case of chander kanta bansal, (2008) 5 scc 117, in order to submit that an application for amendment made after 18 years was held to ..... be rightly rejected. the hon'ble supreme court has referred to its earlier decision in the case of union of india .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai Goa
..... not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not. ? 9. this court in annapurna nayak (dr.) vs. gyan chand varshey (gupta) and anr reported in (2008) mh.j. (cri.)624, followed this view holding as under:- ??5. in chandra deo singh -vs- prakash ..... in the circumstances of this case the complaint does not disclose the offence under section 382 i.p.c. also and, therefore, the learned magistrate had acted rather perversely in taking cognizance of the offence under sections 166 and 382 i.p.c. against the accused persons. ? 22. he also cited ..... persuade myself to accept this contention also. the intention must be to cause wrongful loss to any other person. here when the accused petitioners were acting in pursuance of the notice already issued by them, it can not be said that their intention was to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. ..... 2 of the complaint as follows: thus, accused no. 1 illegally ordered on 30-4-76 the accused no. 2 contravention of the provisions of municipal act, to commit theft, mischief and criminal misappropriation and accused no. 2 accordingly committed these offences. this complaint was placed before the magistrate, who passed an ..... it was wrongful or the intention of the accused was to cause him wrongful loss. under section 60 of the easements act a licence is revoked and under section 63 of that act the possession can be taken after removing the temporary structure etc.. i am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that .....Tag this Judgment!