Bombay High Court
SUNILKUMAR RAMKUMAR AGARWALversusSHASHIKANT BASUDEO PASARI AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order, dismissing the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunilkumar Ramkumar Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging a trial court order that allowed amendment of the plaint and the addition of a third party as plaintiff No. 4. The petitioner argued that the amendment prejudiced his case. The High Court examined whether it should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside the order. The Court held that there was no prejudice to the petitioner and that the petitioner could still file a written statement and raise merits objections. Consequently, the Court found no basis to interfere with the trial court's decision and dismissed the writ petition, leaving all substantive issues to be decided in the underlying suit.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the trial court's order permitting amendment of the plaint and addition of a third party plaintiff.
Subjects
- amendment of plaint
- third party plaintiff
- Article 227
- discretionary jurisdiction
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
Digitally
signed by 24.WP.11515.2017.doc
ANANT
ANANT KRISHNA
KRISHNA NAIK
NAIK Date:
2026.07.14
13:55:37 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
+0530
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11515 OF 2017
Sunilkumar Ramkumar Agarwal ....Petitioner
V/S
Shashikant Basudeo Pasari & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr. Dharam Sharma i/b. Dharam & Co for the Petitioner.
Mr. Samir Kumbhakoni i/b. Ms Nikita Pandey for the Respondent
No. 1
Mr. Sanjay Balakrishnan (through VC) for the Respondent Nos. 2
and 3
Mr. Sachin Chowdhari for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 10th JULY 2026
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed by the original defendant no. 5 to the
challenge the order passed by the trial Court permitting amendment
to the plaint and adding third party as plaintiff no. 4.
2. I do not see any prejudice to the present petitioner in view of
the impugned order. It is always open for the petitioner to file his
written statement and raise objections on merits.
3. This is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the
impugned order.
AKN Page no. 1 of 2
24.WP.11515.2017.doc
4. The writ petition is dismissed.
5. It is clarified that all rival contentions of the parties on merits
are kept open to be decided in the suit.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
AKN Page no. 2 of 2
Checking your session…