Lalit Vs. Vandana and Others

Lalit vs Vandana and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Nagpur Decided Mar 04, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1104922

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1104922
Court: Mumbai Nagpur High Court
Judge: M.L. Tahaliyani
Decided On: Mar 04, 2013
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No.490 of 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lalit

Advocate Dr. Jamal

Respondent

Vandana and Others

Advocate Ms. Satpute

Excerpt

.....the evidence of the applicant/wife was concluded and thereafter the petitioner made an application for amendment of reply. the learned trial court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment cannot be carried out in view of the amended provisions of order vi rule 17 of the code of civil procedure. the apprehension of the petitioner, therefore, is that he will not be able to lead evidence in respect of further developments. 5. the apprehension of the petitioner, in my opinion, is ill-founded inasmuch as the proceedings under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure are of quasi civil nature. in such a proceeding, it is not necessary to adhere strictly to the provisions of code of civil procedure. as such, the evidence in respect of the facts which cover further developments can be led without there being any pleading in that regard. needless to state, the probative value of such evidence will have to be decided by the trial court. however, the petitioner cannot be precluded from leading evidence only because there was no pleading in that regard. it may be further noted that the application under section 125 of code of criminal procedure is to be decided summarily for the purpose of speedy disposal on the ground of convenience and social order. 6. the present petition, therefore, can be disposed of with a direction to the family court to abide by the observations made by this court hereinabove. the petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Full Judgment

Oral Judgment:

Heard Dr. Jamal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Satpute, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court, Nagpur, in Petition No.E-11/2008 rejecting the application of the petitioner for amendment of his reply in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The petitioner is the respondent before the Family Court in a petition for maintenance filed by his wife. The evidence of the applicant/wife was concluded and thereafter the petitioner made an application for amendment of reply. The learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the amendment cannot be carried out in view of the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The apprehension of the petitioner, therefore, is that he will not be able to lead evidence in respect of further developments.

5. The apprehension of the petitioner, in my opinion, is ill-founded inasmuch as the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are of quasi civil nature. In such a proceeding, it is not necessary to adhere strictly to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. As such, the evidence in respect of the facts which cover further developments can be led without there being any pleading in that regard. Needless to state, the probative value of such evidence will have to be decided by the trial Court. However, the petitioner cannot be precluded from leading evidence only because there was no pleading in that regard. It may be further noted that the application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to be decided summarily for the purpose of speedy disposal on the ground of convenience and social order.

6. The present petition, therefore, can be disposed of with a direction to the Family Court to abide by the observations made by this Court hereinabove. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Same Court & Year Mumbai Nagpur · 2013 Same Parties Lalit vs Vandana and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge M.L. Tahaliyani