9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15th September, 2006 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, below Exhibit 44 in Petition No. B-2 of 2005 by which the application of the present petitioner for framing additional issues has not only been rejected but the amendment which has been granted earlier is disallowed and the order dated 25th September, 2006 below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n granted earlier, has also been disallowed. Thereafter, when the matter was fixed on 25th September, 2006, the petitioner filed an application for adjournment on the ground that the petitioner had filed a petition challenging the order dated 15th September, 2006. However, the learned trial court rejected the said application on the ground that already last chance was granted to the petitioner. Vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udice due to the delay in the proceedings. 7. Perusal of the record would reveal that the procedure adopted by the learned Family Court is totally unknown to law. Once amendment was allowed, it is difficult to understand under what provision the learned Family Court has disallowed the said amendment by a subsequent order while considering the application of the present petitioner for framing addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e about pendency of the petition before this Court, the learned Judge ought to have stayed his hands away and waited till further orders to be passed by this Court. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 15th September, 2006 and 25th September, 2006 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
