Bombay High Court

NOORJAHAN BEGUM SYED BADRUDDINversusDARGAH HAZRAT MOULANA SAHEB, PAITHAN THRU. HEREDITARY MUTAWALLI SHAMSUNISSA BEGUM SYED Q. INAMDAR

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The amendment to the written statement may be allowed and the documentary evidence may be led despite the absence of specific pleadings.

Summary

The appellant, Noorjahan Begum, appealed against the Maharashtra State Waqf Tribunal’s order rejecting his application to amend his written statement in Waqf Suit No.75/2023 after the trial had begun. The amendment sought to incorporate references to documentary evidence already filed on record. The Tribunal held that parties need only plead facts, not evidence, and therefore rejected the amendment. The plaintiff’s counsel, however, indicated no objection to the defendant leading evidence of the documents and would not challenge their admissibility. The High Court, noting the plaintiff’s consent and the Tribunal’s own observations, allowed the amendment and directed that the documentary evidence may be led despite the lack of specific pleadings. Consequently, the appeal was disposed, permitting the defendant to introduce the documents in evidence.

Issues considered

Whether an amendment to a written statement filed after the commencement of trial can be permitted to incorporate documentary evidence without specific pleadings.
Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the amendment on the ground that pleadings should only state facts and not evidence.
Whether the plaintiff’s consent negates any objection to the admission of the documentary evidence.

Subjects

amendment of pleadings
documentary evidence
Waqf Tribunal
civil procedure
written statement
evidence admissibility

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43014


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                13 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1950 OF 2026

                          NOORJAHAN BEGUM SYED BADRUDDIN
                                             VERSUS
                DARGAH HAZRAT MOULANA SAHEB, PAITHAN THRU. HEREDITARY
                    MUTAWALLI SHAMSUNISSA BEGUM SYED Q. INAMDAR
                                                ...
                          Mr. N.S. Muthiyan, Advocate for appellant
                          Mr. P.P. Patni, Advocate for sole respondent
                                                ...
                                                 CORAM :     ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                                 DATE :      22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026


            ORDER :


            .           The present appeal is filed in order to challenge order dated

            24.04.2026 passed by learned District Judge / Chairman, Maharashtra State

            Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad rejecting application for amendment of written

            statement filed by the present petitioner / original defendant in Waqf Suit

            No.75/2023 vide Exh.74. The application for amendment was admittedly

            made after the trial has commenced with recording of evidence of the

            plaintiff. Perusal of the application for amendment will demonstrate that

            petitioner / defendant No.1 intended to incorporate pleadings with respect to

            documents which are filed on record. Apart from the fact that the application

            was filed after commencement of trial for which non plausible explanation

            was offered, according to learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has
                                      2                            13_FA_1950_2026



predominantly rejected the application on the ground that the parties are

only required to plead the facts and not evidence. It is recorded that the

proposed amendment relates to documentary evidence, for which pleadings

are not required. Learned Advocate for respondent /original plaintiff also

makes a statement that respondent/plaintiff shall have no objection for

allowing the petitioner/defendant to lead evidence with respect to

documents enumerated in the proposed amendment and that objection to

admissibility of the said documents in evidence, if duly proved in accordance

with law, will not be raised for want of pleadings. In view of the observations

made by learned Tribunal in paragraph No.16 of the order, as also having

regard to the statement made by learned Advocate for respondent / plaintiff,

in the considered opinion of this Court First Appeal can be disposed of by

directing that the petitioner/defendant will be permitted to lead evidence

with respect to documents referred in the proposed amendment and that

objection with respect to absence of pleadings with respect to the said

documents will not be raised by the respondent/plaintiff and that the learned

Tribunal shall not disallow the said documentary evidence for want of

pleadings. First Appeal stands disposed of in the light of observations made

above.



                                                  ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )
agd

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…