Bombay High Court
MUDRIKABAI PANDHARINATH KENDREversusRAMAKANT SHRIPADRAO KULKARNI AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- SACHIN S DESHMUKH
Holding
The amendment sought by the petitioner went beyond the scope of the plaintiffs' amendment, so the trial court's refusal to allow it was correct.
Summary
The petitioner Mudrikabai challenged a trial court order rejecting her application to amend her written statement after the plaintiffs were allowed to amend their plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The plaintiffs had been permitted to correct the description of the suit property, and the trial court allowed that amendment. The petitioner then sought a consequential amendment to her defence to align with the altered plaint, but the trial court refused, holding that her proposed amendment introduced fresh pleas beyond the scope of the plaintiffs’ amendment. The High Court examined whether the trial court erred in exercising its discretion and concluded that the petitioner’s amendment was indeed beyond the permissible scope, and thus the trial court’s refusal was justified. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as being without merit.
Issues considered
- Whether a party is entitled to a consequential amendment of its written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC when the opposite party’s plaint is amended
- Whether the amendment sought by the petitioner went beyond the scope of the amendment allowed to the plaintiffs
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VI Rule 17
Subjects
- Amendment of pleadings
- Order VI Rule 17
- Written statement
- Civil Procedure
- Writ petition
- High Court
- Scope of amendment
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:30960
27 WP No.11702.2015
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11702 OF 2015
MUDRIKABAI PANDHARINATH KENDRE
VERSUS
RAMAKANT SHRIPADRAO KULKARNI AND OTHERS
***
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv B. Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shrutika Nirhali h/f Mr.
Prashant R. Nangare
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 22nd July, 2026
ORDER :-
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated
01.04.2015 rendered by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division,
Udgir in Special Civil Suit No. 8 of 2013 below Exh. 138, rejecting
the application presented by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”).
2. The Respondents No. 1 to 3 (Original Plaintiffs)
instituted Special Civil Suit No. 8 of 2013 seeking a decree for
declaration and injunction. The suit was contested by the present
Petitioner (Original Defendant No. 2), by presenting written
statement raising counter-claim. During the pendency of the
proceedings, the learned Trial Court acceded to a request made by
27 WP No.11702.2015
-2-
the Plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, permitting to amend and correct the areas of the suit
properties. Consequent to this alteration of the plaint, the
Petitioner preferred an application seeking an amendment to
written statement to align defense with the amendment carried out
by the Plaintiffs in the plaint. The learned Trial Court, however,
rejected the Petitioner's application. Being aggrieved by the said
rejection, the Petitioner has approached this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once
the Trial Court permitted plaintiff to amend the plaint vide order
dated 06.08.2014, a corresponding right accrued in favour of the
petitioner to carry out a consequential amendment. As such, it was
incumbent upon the Trial Court to allow the application under Order
VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The learned counsel further submitted that
the Trial Court committed a error while rejecting the application.
The impugned order has caused prejudice to the petitioner by
restricting right to meet the amended case of the plaintiffs. Hence,
prayed to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1
supports the order under challenge, submitting that the reasoning
adopted by the learned Trial Judge requires no interference. It is
27 WP No.11702.2015
-3-
further submitted that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any
illegality in the impugned order and consequently, the writ petition,
being devoid of merit, is prayed to be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the litigating sides
and perusing the material on record, admittedly, the amendment
application presented by the plaintiffs, which was allowed to by the
Trial Court, was confined to correcting the area of suit property. In
the present case, the application presented by the petitioner
indicates that the proposed amendment travel beyond the scope of
amendment allowed to the plaintiffs. The petitioner has sought to
incorporate fresh pleas that does not have bearing in relation to
amendment in plaint.
6. The Trial Court, therefore, rightly appreciated this
distinction and refused to exercise its discretion while rejecting the
application presented by the petitioner. Consequently, I find no
illegality in the order under challenge that would warrant
interference.
7. In view of the above, the present writ petition sans
merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…