Bombay High Court
DIPAK PANDURANG MATALE AND ORSversusTUKARAM ANANDA MATALE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order rejecting the amendment of the plaint is set aside and the amendment is allowed.
Summary
The petitioner challenged a 2 March 2009 order of the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Nashik, which rejected an application (Exhibit‑65) to amend the plaint. The suit had been stayed pending the writ petition, but after the Supreme Court’s decision in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, the suit proceeded and further amendments were filed. The intervenors, who are now purchasers of the suit property, sought to be made necessary parties and consented to the amendment. The High Court, noting the intervenors’ consent and the suit’s progress, set aside the earlier order and allowed the amendment. Consequently, the writ petition and the interim application were both disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the amendment of the plaint under Exhibit‑65 should be allowed despite the earlier rejection.
- Whether the purchasers of the suit property can be treated as necessary parties and intervenors in the suit.
Subjects
- Amendment of plaint
- Intervenor
- Necessary party
- Civil Procedure Code
- Writ petition
- Stay of suit
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:37345
k 1/2 6 wp 5281.09 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5281 OF 2009
Krishna Shaligram Niphadkar ....Petitioner
V/S
Tukaram Ananada Matale & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7122 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5281 OF 2009
Dipak Pandurang Matale & Ors. ....Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Krishna Shaligram Niphadkar ....Petitioner
V/S
Tukaram Ananada Matale & Ors. ....Respondents
_________
Mr. Nitin Mulye for the Petitioner.
Mr. Prashant D. Patil for Applicant/Intervenor in IA.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 9 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1. The Petition challenges the order dated 2 March 2009 passed by
4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nashik, rejecting Application at
Exhibit-65 seeking amendment of the Plaint. Pendency of the Petition
had resulted in stay of the suit for sometime. It appears that on account
of judgment of the Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P)
Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation1 the suit proceeded further.
Issues are framed and Plaintiff has filed further Application for
amendment to bring on record transferee pendente lite.
1 (2018) 16 SCC 299
katkam Page No. 1 of 2
k 2/2 6 wp 5281.09 as.doc
2. The learned counsel appearing for Applicants in Interim
Application submits that Applicants are now the purchasers of the suit
property and are necessary parties in the suit. They do not have any
objection if the Application at Exhibit-65 for amendment is allowed.
3. In view of consent given by the Applicants/Intervenors and the
fact that the suit has proceeded with further amendments, in my view,
even the Application at Exhibit-65 deserves to be allowed.
4. Accordingly, order dated 2 March 2009 passed on Application
Exhibit-65 is set aside. Application at Exhibit-65 is allowed in terms of
the prayers made therein. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
5. In view of the disposal of Writ Petition, nothing would survive in
the Interim Application, and the same is also accordingly disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Page No. 2 of 2
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/09/2026 14:57:36
Checking your session…