RAMAN SHAMRAO RATH AND ORS vs RATH MANSION CO OP. HSG. SOC. LTD AND ORS — WP/7119/2026
Case under C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order) Section NA. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 11th June 2026.
CNR: HCBM010260562026
Filing Number
WP/15165/2026
Filing Date
03-06-2026
Registration No
WP/7119/2026
Registration Date
04-06-2026
Judge
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
Coram
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
Bench Type
Single
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )
Sub-Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 11 )
Judicial Branch
Civil
Decision Date
11th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAMAN SHAMRAO RATH AND ORS
Adv. Samir
BASIL SHAMRAO RATH
JOYCE SHAMRAO RATH
HERMANN SHAMRAO RATH
USHA CECIL RATH
Respondent(s)
RATH MANSION CO OP. HSG. SOC. LTD AND ORS
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF RATH MANSION CHS LTD., THRO THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
VIDHYA PATIL
RAMANI MENON
SHARAD GOVIND JOG
K K DAMA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
FRESH ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-06-2026 | FRESH ADMISSION |
Orders
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Petitioners' writ petition challenging the City Civil Court's rejection of their application to amend the plaint. The court found that the proposed amendments—adding claims regarding fraudulent voter lists, illegal deemed conveyance applications, and unauthorized parking lot conversions—would fundamentally alter the nature of the suit from damages for malicious prosecution to declarations regarding the Society's rights, constituting materially distinct causes of action. However, the court granted the Petitioners two weeks to adduce evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Petitioners' writ petition challenging the City Civil Court's rejection of their application to amend the plaint. The court found that the proposed amendments—adding claims regarding fraudulent voter lists, illegal deemed conveyance applications, and unauthorized parking lot conversions—would fundamentally alter the nature of the suit from damages for malicious prosecution to declarations regarding the Society's rights, constituting materially distinct causes of action. However, the court granted the Petitioners two weeks to adduce evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts