Bombay High Court
MRS. PURNIMA SATISH PATILversusMRS. BHADRAKUMARI PRITHVIRAJ BHANSALI (DECD) AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The amendment to paragraph (E) of the schedule was allowed to correct the erroneous plot description.
Summary
The petition challenged the order of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Uran dated 2 July 2016, which had partially rejected the plaintiff’s application to amend paragraph (E) of the schedule of amendment. The plaintiff sought to correct the description of a plot under the 12.5% CIDCO scheme, which was mistakenly identified as Plot No.34 instead of the correct Plot Nos. 3 and 4. The Court observed that a similar amendment had already been permitted in paragraph (H) of the schedule, indicating consistency in allowing the correction. Consequently, the Court held that the amendment in paragraph (E) should be allowed to reflect the accurate plot description. The order dated 2 July 2016 was modified accordingly, and the writ petition was partly allowed and disposed without any order as to costs. With the disposal of the writ petition, the interim application was also dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the amendment of paragraph (E) of the schedule to correct the plot description should be permitted despite the earlier rejection by the trial court.
Subjects
- Amendment of pleadings
- Civil Procedure Code
- Schedule amendment
- Plot description correction
- CIDCO scheme
- Writ petition
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:36198
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 15:54:10
Checking your session…