Bombay High Court

NANDA RAVINDRA NAIKversusSANDEEP SHEKHAR SUHAS RATHOD AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The court held that the amendment is permissible and dismissed the review application.

Summary

The applicant filed a civil application seeking condonation of a five‑day delay in filing a review application challenging an amendment to the defendants' written statement. The amendment altered the defendants' earlier admission that the disputed property was ancestral, introducing a contradictory theory. The applicant argued that allowing the amendment would cause injustice and relied on the precedent Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (2022). The court examined the issue and held that the law permits a defendant to take inconsistent pleas and found no error in the earlier order allowing the amendment. Consequently, the review application was rejected and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether a five‑day delay in filing a review application can be condoned.
Whether the amendment introducing an inconsistent plea should be set aside on review.
Whether the law permits a defendant to take inconsistent pleas in their defence.

Subjects

condonation of delay
review application
amendment to written statement
inconsistent pleas
civil procedure
property dispute

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:9325-DB



                                                                   52 CA No.2498.2026
                                                 -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2498 OF 2026
                                       IN RAST/5927/2026

                                     NANDA RAVINDRA NAIK
                                              VERSUS
                      SANDEEP SHEKHAR SUHAS RATHOD AND OTHERS
                                                 ...
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. D. M. Shinde
                                                 ...

                                 CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                    Date : 4th March, 2026

              PER COURT :-


              Civil Application No. 2498 of 2026


              1.          By this application, applicant seeks condonation of five (5)
              days delay in filing the Review Application.


              2.          For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is
              condoned.


              Review Application (St.) No. 5927 of 2026


              1.          Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the applicant, invited my

              attention to Paragraph 6 of the previous order, alongside the copies of

              the written statement and the proposed amendments. He submitted that

              the defendant had previously given a clear admission in the original
                                                       52 CA No.2498.2026
                                    -2-

written statement, that the said property as ancestral. In contrast, the

proposed amendment introduces a contradictory theory. The counsel

further submits that allowing such an amendment would permit the

defendants to withdraw an admission and fundamentally shift their

stance, thereby causing significant injustice and prejudice to the

petitioner’s case.



2.            In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for

petitioner placed reliance in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of

India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr. [2022 LJSoft (SC)

969].



3.            After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, I find

no merit in the present challenge. This Court, while previously allowing

the amendment to the written statement, noted that the law is well-

settled that a defendant is permitted to take inconsistent pleas in their

defence. Consequently, there is no error apparent on the face of the

record regarding the order dated 19.06.2026. The review application is,

therefore, rejected. No order as to costs.



                                          (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Omkar Joshi

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…