Bombay High Court
SHRI. DILIPKUMAR PRANJEEVAN THAKKAR SINCE DECD THROU. L.H.versusSMT. KASHIBEN NANALAL THAKKAR and ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- RAJESH S PATIL
Holding
The court allowed the interim application and ordered that the amendment of the plaint be completed within two weeks.
Summary
The landlord filed an eviction suit on the ground of bona‑fide requirement, later seeking to amend the plaint to include a sub‑lessee as a party. The trial court allowed the amendment of the cause title but not the consequential paragraphs and dismissed the suit; the landlord appealed, and the appellate court rejected the amendment application. The landlord died, prompting an interim application to record his legal heirs and to seek relief from the rejection of the amendment. The High Court, after hearing counsel, allowed the interim application, directing that the amendment be effected within two weeks. The appeal remains pending, but the writ petition’s interim relief has been granted.
Issues considered
- What is the proper procedure for amending a plaint to add a new party and consequential paragraphs?
- Whether the trial court’s limited amendment of only the cause title, without consequential paragraphs, justifies dismissal of the suit.
- Whether the appellate court’s rejection of the amendment application is legally tenable.
- Effect of the petitioner's death on the pending writ petition and amendment proceedings.
Subjects
- eviction suit
- amendment of plaint
- sub‑lease
- civil procedure
- interim application
- death of petitioner
Judgment
026:BHC-AS:2
Diksha Rane 19 WP 30 2004.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
19 WRIT PETITION NO.30/2004
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4709/2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.30/2004
SHRI. DILIPKUMAR PRANJEEVAN THAKKAR ..PETITIONER
VS
SMT. KASHIBEN NANALAL THAKKAR and ORS. ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Adv. D. Mhaispurkar a/w. Adv. Rishikesh Pawaskar for
petitioner/applicant in IA.
------------
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 10 JULY 2026.
P.C. :
1) Mr.Mhaispurkar submits that this petition was filed by the
landlord, who had filed eviction suit on the ground of bonafide
requirement and subletee as the premises was further subleted by the
tenant an application was moved to amend the plaint by adding the
new subletee as a party to the plaint, along with consequential
amendments. He submits that amendment application was allowed.
However, only the cause title of the plaint was amended, and the
consequential paragraphs were not added in the plaint. Subsequently,
the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Being dissatisfied with the
1/2
Diksha Rane 19 WP 30 2004.doc
dismissal of the suit, regular civil appeal was preferred. So also, an
application for amendment of plaint was preferred. The said
application for amendment was rejected. The appeal is still pending
before the appellate Court. The present writ petition challenges the
rejection of amendment application.
2) Rule has been issued in the writ petition and the stay has been
granted to the proceedings of appeal. In the meanwhile, the
petitioner died. Hence, this application to bring on record the legal
heirs of sole petitioner.
3) I have heard Mr.Mhaispurkar and I have gone through the
contents of the interim application. A case is made to allow this
interim application.
4) Interim application stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses
(a), (b) and (c).
5) Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks
from today.
(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)
2/2
Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/07/2026 20:09:16
Checking your session…