ALHAJ EBRAHIM KHAN S/O AHMED KHAN (SINCE DECD) THROUGH LRS. ALAM KHAN AND ORS.versusSOPAN PANDHARINATH LOHAKARE

                    Sonali Mane                                                20-WP-10849-2014.docx



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 10849 OF 2014


                    Alhaj Ebrahim Khan S/O Ahmed Khan
                    (Decd.) Thr. Lrs. Alam Khan And Ors.                       … Petitioners
                             Versus

                    Sopan Pandharinath Lohakare (Decd.) Thr. Lrs.

                    Ranjana Sopan Lohakare and Ors.                            … Respondents



                    Mr. Abhijeet Kandarkar a/w Mr. Rohan R. Mane i/b Mr. Ramdas Shelke
                    for Petitioners.
                    None for Respondents.



                                                       CORAM       : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                                       DATE        : 29 SEPTEMBER 2026.

                    P.C. :


                    1)            The Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 24 March
                    2014 passed by the 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, rejecting
                    the application for amendment filed by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs at
                    Exhibit 131 in Regular Civil Suit No. 777 of 1987.



                    2)            By Order dated 28 January 2015, this Court had issued notice
                    only with regard to the permissibility to amend the plaint in respect of
                    the boundaries of the suit property. Paragraph 3 of the Order dated
                    28 January 2015 reads thus:
       Digitally
       signed by
       MANE
MANE SONALI
SONALI DILIP
DILIP  Date:
       2026.09.30
       17:23:43
       +0530

                                                   ___Page No.1 of 3___
                                                    29 September 2026
Sonali Mane                                                            20-WP-10849-2014.docx



              3.    Prima facie the order in so far as incorporation of Paragraphs (D)
              and (E) after the Paragraph (C) cannot be found fault with. However, in
              so far as the amendments sought to the boundaries are concerned, the
              notice is restricted to the said relief. Hence, the parties are put to notice
              that the above Writ Petition may be heard and disposed of finally at the
              stage of admission. In the meantime there would be ad-interim relief in
              terms of prayer clause (d).




3)            I have heard Mr. Khandarkar, the learned counsel appearing
for Petitioners, despite service of notice of final disposal on the
Respondents. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondents. The
Petition is pending for the last 11 long years, and the suit in turn is
pending since 1987. In my view, therefore, it is not necessary to await
the appearance on behalf of the Respondents, as this Court is proposing
to allow the amendment only in respect of the boundaries of the suit
property.



4)            In my view, it is necessary to permit the Petitioners to correct
boundaries of the suit property. The amendments are necessitated on
account of typographical/clerical errors. The amendments do not
change the nature of the suit. The amendments are necessary for the
purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the
parties. In my view, therefore, the amendments as per paragraph
Nos. 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) can be permitted, which are as under:



              3 (a)     In the description of the eastern side boundary of the said
              property the following words "and cantonment Land" are required to be
              added after the words -Hissa No.8 of Survey No.601.

              3 (b)      In the description of the southern side boundary of the said
              property the following words - "and transformer of M.S.E.D.C. Ltd.", are
              required to be added after the words - Hissa No.12 of Survey No. 601.


                                    ___Page No.2 of 3___
                                     29 September 2026
Sonali Mane                                                        20-WP-10849-2014.docx



              3 (c)     Below the boundaries of the property described in para 1(b) in
              the plaint the entire sentence starting with the words - "wherein the
              Dargah Shariff -- is situated" is required to be deleted.




5)            The Petition accordingly succeeds in part. Order dated
24 March 2014 passed on the application at Exhibit 131 is accordingly
modified by permitting amendments as per paragraph Nos. 3(a), 3(b)
and 3(c) of the application at Exhibit 131, which are quoted in the
preceding paragraph. The amendments be carried out by the
Petitioners/Plaintiffs in the suit within a period of six weeks.
Respondents/Defendants would be at liberty to file additional written
statement, if desire within a period of four weeks of service of the
amended copy of the plaint.



6)            With above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.




                                                          [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                                   ___Page No.3 of 3___
                                    29 September 2026