Bombay High Court

PURNIMA SATISH PATILversusBHADRAKUMARI PRITHVIRAJ BHANSALI (DECD) THR LHRS AND ORS.

Decided: 2 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The amendment to correct the plot description in paragraph (E) of the schedule must be allowed.

Summary

Mrs. Purnima Satish Patil filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uran dated 2 July 2016, which had partially rejected her application to amend paragraph (E) of the schedule of amendment. The amendment sought to correct the description of a plot under the 12.5% CIDCO scheme, which was erroneously listed as Plot No.34 instead of Plot Nos. 3 and 4. The High Court observed that a similar amendment had already been permitted in paragraph (H) of the same schedule, indicating no substantive reason to deny the correction. Consequently, the Court modified the impugned order to allow the amendment in paragraph (E). The writ petition was partly allowed, the amendment was permitted, and the petition was disposed of without any order as to costs. The related interim application was also dismissed as nothing survived.

Issues considered

Whether the amendment of paragraph (E) of the schedule to correct the plot description should be allowed despite the lower court's partial rejection.

Subjects

Amendment of pleadings
Civil Procedure Code
Schedule amendment
Plot description correction
CIDCO scheme
Writ petition
High Court of Bombay

Judgment

Megha                                               19_wp_10825_2017


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                  WRIT PETITION NO.10825 OF 2017
                              WITH
               INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5908 OF 2026
                               IN
                  WRIT PETITION NO.10825 OF 2017

Mrs. Purnima Satish Patil                          ...Petitioner

                  V/s.

Mrs. Bhadrakumari Prithviraj Bhansali
deceased, now represented by
1.A Dhanesh Prithviraj Bhansali and
Ors.                                              ...Respondents
                             ________________
Mr. Hanmant G. Wakshe (through vc) for the Petitioner.
Mr. Atharva Pawar i/b. Mr. Sachindra B. Shetye for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand for Respondent No.10.
Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent-State.
                             ________________


                                       CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                        DATED: 2 SEPTEMBER 2026.


P.C.:


1)      Challenge in the Petition is to the order dated 2 July 2016 passed
by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uran to the extent it partly rejects
application for amendment at Exhibit-36.



                                 Page No.1 of 2
                               2 September 2026
                          Megha                                                    19_wp_10825_2017


                          2)          I have heard Mr. Wakshe, the learned counsel appearing for the
                          Petitioner, Mr. Pawar, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
                          No.2, Mr. Gavand, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.10
                          and Ms. Chipade, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent -State.


                          3)          In paragraph (E) of the schedule of amendment, the Plaintiff
                          desired to incorporate correct description of the Plot, which is under
                          12.5% scheme of CIDCO. In the Plaint, the plot is erroneously described
                          as Plot No.34 whereas correct description of the Plot is 3 and 4. Similar
                          amendment is already allowed in paragraph (H) of the schedule.
                          Therefore, the proposed amendment in paragraph (E) of the schedule
                          ought to have been allowed.


                          4)          Petition accordingly partly succeeds. Order dated 2 July 2016
                          stands modified by permitting the Plaintiff to incorporate amendment as
                          per paragraph (E) of the schedule of the amendment.


                          5)          Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of in above terms.
                          There shall be no order as to costs.


                          6)          With disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives in the
                          Interim Application and the same is accordingly disposed of.




                                                                               [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




Signed by: Megha S. Parab
                                                              Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge                         2 September 2026
Date: 03/09/2026 15:54:47

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…