Bombay High Court
INDUBAI DHONDU PATIL GARDE AND OTHERSversusKHUSHAL BARKU PATIL WAGH AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- AJIT B KADETHANKAR
Holding
The High Court quashed the trial court's orders rejecting the applications and allowed the petitioners to file a fresh application for a correct typed copy of the amended plaint and to seek recasting of issues.
Summary
The petitioners sought to amend their plaint in Civil Suit No.231 of 2019 and were granted leave by the trial court. After making handwritten amendments, they filed a typed copy (Exhibit-1/A) that contained discrepancies with the approved amendment. The trial court rejected their applications to submit a corrected typed copy and to recast issues, deeming the first application vague and the second premature. The petitioners appealed, arguing they should be allowed to file a detailed application specifying the errors and to seek recasting of issues. The High Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the applications without giving the petitioners a chance to specify discrepancies, quashed the impugned orders, and permitted the petitioners to file a fresh application for a correct typed copy and to seek recasting of issues.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioners' application to file a corrected typed copy of the amended plaint without specifying the discrepancies.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to be allowed to file a fresh application for a correct typed copy and to recast the issues.
- Whether the orders passed by the trial court rejecting the applications can be quashed.
Subjects
- amendment of plaint
- typed copy discrepancy
- civil procedure
- writ petition
- quash order
- recasting issues
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:9906
1
8-wp-10355-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10355 OF 2024
Indubai Dhondu Patil Garde And Others
VERSUS
Khushal Barku Patil Wagh And Others
...
Mr. S. H. Tripathi, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. M. K. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent nos.1 to 4
Mr. S. N. Pawde, Advocate for Respondent no.5
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 09TH MARCH, 2026
ORDER :-
. An application below Exhibit-12 was filed by the present
petitioners/plaintiffs in the Regular Civil Suit No.231 of 2019
pending in the Court of learned 2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Dhule. This Application was for seeking permission
to amend the pleadings as also the title clause in the plaint.
Vide order dated 05.10.2021, the learned Civil Judge allowed
the application and granted leave to the petitioners/plaintiffs
to carry out the amendments pursuant to the application.
2. Mr. S. H. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the
petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that accordingly the
amendments were carried out on the Exhibit-1 of the Civil
Suit.
2
8-wp-10355-2024
3. Thereafter, a typed copy of the amended plaint also
came to be filed on the record, which was numbered as
Exhibit-1/A. The peculiar facts of the case are that there were
major discrepancies in the typed copy which is at Exhibit-1/A
and the amendment that was carried out by the plaintiffs in
handwriting on the Exhibit-1. It appears that neither the
plaintiffs nor the defendants even nor the learned Trial Court
noticed the discrepancies. In the course of time even the issues
were casted on the basis of Exhibit-1/A. Thereafter the
plaintiffs realized the mistake that the typed copy of the
amended plaint is not in conformity with the leave granted by
the learned Trial Court, as also the with the actual
amendment carried out by the petitioners on Exhibit-1. Hence,
the present applications below Exhibit 105 and 106 came to
be filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners before the learned Trial
Court.
4. In the application at Exhibit 105, the plaintiffs merely
submitted that there are a number of mistakes in the typed
copy of the amended plaint, and in view of that the plaintiffs
have submitted a new corrected typed copy of amended
3
8-wp-10355-2024
plaint, which may be taken on record. Application at Exhibit-
106 was for recasting the issues in view of the correct
amended plaint. The defendant, at that time did not object the
application filed below Exhibit-105, but did object to the
application filed below Exhibit-106.
5. The learned Trial Court on 03.08.2024 decided the
application on its own merits and was pleased to reject the
same by recording that the application at Exhibit-105 was as
vague as it could be. The learned Trial Court recorded that the
petitioners/plaintiffs had not mentioned what the discrepancy
was in the amendments carried out on the Exhibit-1 as also
those presented in Exhibit-1/A. The learned Trial Court while
concluding the order opined that the petitioners ought to have
filed a detailed application giving the specification of the
errors committed in Exhibit-1/A so as to give an appropriate
opportunity to the other side to respond to the same. As such
the application at Exhibit-105 came to be rejected by the
learned Trial Court.
6. Consequent to the order passed on application at
Exhibit-105, the application at Exhibit 106 also came to be
4
8-wp-10355-2024
turned down by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial
Court has rightly observed that the application Exhibit-106
was filed as if holding that the application below Exhibit-105
was allowed by the learned Trial Court. As such the rejection
of the application below Exhibit-106 occurred consequent to
rejection of the application below Exhibit-105.
7. Mr. S. H. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners
would submit that the application below Exhibit-105 was
indeed falling deficit to the exact pleadings on the basis of
which the prayer in the application could have been made. He
therefore requests that in view of the opinion expressed by the
learned Trial Court, the petitioners be given an opportunity to
file an appropriate application for bringing on record a typed
copy of the correctly amended plaint in view of the
amendment carried out by the plaintiffs on Exhibit-1. He
would submit that the petitioners be also left at liberty to pray
for recasting the issues.
8. Mr. M. K. Bhosale, learned Counsel for the
respondents/defendants would vehemently object this
application and would alternatively submit that in the event if
5
8-wp-10355-2024
the petitioners file such application, the defendants be given
an opportunity to defend and respond the same.
9. It is pertinent that amendment in fact is already allowed
by the learned Trial Court. Amendment was also carried out in
handwriting. The problem is with the typed copy of amended
plaint. If the typed copy of the amended plaint i.e. amended
Exhibit-1 is sought to be filed, it would be merely a formality
to be allowed by comparing the handwritten portion and the
typed version. Even otherwise, the addition of pleadings for
which amendment was not permitted, can not be considered
for any purpose.
10. The record itself speaks that the main application below
Exhibit-105 was not objected by the defendants/respondents
in the trial. Yet, I have given an opportunity to the
respondents/defendants to be heard. In view of this, in my
considered opinion, the ends of justice could be achieved if
the impugned orders are quashed and set aside and liberty is
granted to the petitioners as prayed for to file fresh
application. As such, I pass following order:
6
8-wp-10355-2024
ORDER
a. Writ Petition stands allowed.
b. Impugned order dated 03.08.2024 passed
below Exhibit-105 and 106 by the learned 3 rd
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule in
Regular Civil Suit No.231 of 2019 are quashed
and set aside.
c. The petitioners/plaintiffs may file a fresh
application for presenting a correct typed copy of
the amended plaint in conformity with the
amendments made in Exhibit-1 in the suit.
d. The learned Civil Judge is requested to
decide that application as early as possible or
within two months from the date of filing of such
application.
e. The petitioners are at liberty to file further
application for recasting all issues depending
upon the result of their application for filing fresh
correct typed copy of amended Exhibit-1.
f. Writ Petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2026
Checking your session…