Bombay High Court
VALMIK SUKDEV GUMNAR AND ANRversusMAINABAI NANA POMNAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The amendment to correct the area from 34 Are to 50 Are is permissible, but any amendment beyond that scope is not allowed.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a March 2, 2026 order of the Civil Judge, Malegaon, which allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint to increase the alleged encroached land from 34 Are to 50 Are. The petitioners argued that the amendment was sought at the fag end of the trial, that the court commissioner’s report and the cadastral surveyor’s deposition did not support the increase, and that the amendment went beyond the scope permitted. The High Court held that the amendment was justified because it was based on the court‑commissioner’s report, did not alter the nature or character of the suit, and would not cause irretrievable prejudice to the defendant. The Court further clarified that the plaintiff is limited to the specific amendment sought—correcting the area to 50 Are—and cannot make any further changes beyond that. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed, allowing the limited amendment and prohibiting any additional alterations.
Issues considered
- Whether an amendment to increase the area of alleged encroached land at an advanced stage of trial is permissible under civil procedure.
- Whether such amendment changes the nature or character of the suit or causes prejudice to the defendant.
- Whether the plaintiff may amend the plaint beyond the specific amendment authorized by the trial court.
Subjects
- plaint amendment
- civil procedure
- encroachment
- trial court discretion
- prejudice
- nature of suit
Judgment
Digitally signed
SWAROOP by SWAROOP
SHARAD
SHARAD PHADKE
PHADKE Date: 2026.08.29
15:05:56 +0530
17 wp 10202 of 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10202 OF 2026
Valmik Sukdev Gumnar and Anr. ... Petitioners
versus
Mainabai Nana Pomnar … Respondent
Mr. Jayendra D. Khairnar (through VC) with Ms. Gauri S. Kulkarni, for
Petitioners.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 28 AUGUST 2026
ORAL ORDER :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 2 March 2026 passed
by the learned Civil Judge, Malegaon, whereby the application preferred by
the Plaintiff to amend the Plaint so as to correct the area of the allegedly
encroached land, mentioned in paragraph No.1 of the plaint, from 34 Are to
50 Are, came to be allowed.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the amendment was
allowed at the fag end of the trial. Though the report of the Court
Commissioner was received at a much earlier point in time, no effort was
made to amend the plaint. Even the deposition of the Cadestal Surveyor, who
carried out the Survey of the disputed property, does not support the
proposed increase in the area of the alleged encroached land. Moreover,
SSP 1/3
17 wp 10202 of 2026.doc
though the amendment was restricted to corrections in the area of the alleged
encroached land, the Respondent – Plaintiff has carried out amendment in
the plaint beyond what has been permitted by the trial Court.
4. To the extent of the area of the alleged encroached land, the
amendment, even at the advanced stage of the trial, was justifiably allowed by
the trial Court as it was based on the report of the cadestal surveyor who was
appointed as a Court Commissioner. The Trial Court was justified in holding
that the proposed amendment would neither change the nature and character
of the suit, nor would it cause irretrievable prejudice to the Defendant.
5. The submission of Mr. Khairnar as regards the merits of the claim of
encroachment would equally govern the case of the Plaintiff in regard to the
enhanced area of the alleged encroached land as to the encroachment
initially pleaded in the plaint. Thus, no interference is warranted with the
impugned order to the extent of permitting the Plaintiff to amend the plaint so
as to correct the area mentioned in paragraph No.1 from 34 Are to 50 Are.
6. In regard to the submission of Mr. Khairnar that, taking advantage of
the impugned order, the Plaintiff has carried out amendment beyond what has
been permitted by the Trial Court, it is necessary to clarify that the Plaintiff
would not be entitled to carry out any amendment beyond the one permitted
by the trial Court by the impugned order. It must be noted that, in the
application for amendment (Exh.59), the Plaintiff has sought permission to
SSP 2/3
17 wp 10202 of 2026.doc
amend the plaint in accordance with the amendment proposed in paragraph
No.3 of the said application. Paragraph No.3, in turn, makes it explicitly clear
that the amendment was sought in paragraph No.1 of the plaint so as to
correct the area from 34 Are to 50 Are only and nothing beyond.
7. Thus, subject to the clarification that the Plaintiff should be permitted to
carry out amendment only in terms of the prayers made in the application
(Exh.59), the Writ Petition stands disposed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
SSP 3/3
Checking your session…