PRATIBHA BHALCHANDRA KAVALE AND OTHERSversusANITA RAJKUMAR KHATKE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:16101



                                                                     42.wp12068.2024.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 12068 OF 2024

                            Pratibha Bhalchandra Kavale And Others
                                            VERSUS
                               Anita Rajkumar Khatke And Others

                                                ----
            Mr.Ajinkya A. Joshi, Advocate h/f. Mr.S.V.Natu, Advocate for petitioners
            Mr.K.T.Taur and Mr.K.T.Jamdar, Advocates for respondents
                                                ----

                                      CORAM :      AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                      DATE  :      APRIL 08 2026
            PER COURT      :-

                        Heard.


            2.          In Special Civil Suit No.128 of 2017, an application (Exh.69)

            was filed by the defendants to bring on record the legal representatives

            of defendant no.1 namely Sushila Narsing Bandgar. It was submitted

            that during pendency of the suit, Sushila died. Besides bringing legal

            representatives on record, a will deed purportedly executed by Sushila

            in favour of defendant nos.6 and 7 was also sought to be brought on

            record. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 24.11.2022, learned

            Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, allowed the application (Exh.69) and

            granted permission to amend the written statement. Accordingly, the

            written statement was amended. Thereafter, since a new case referring

            to the will deed has come on record, obviously the petitioners filed an
                                     2                       42.wp12068.2024



application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to

amend the plaint. Since the amendment sought by the plaintiff was

consequent to the amendment sought by the defendants pursuant to

the death of Sushila, the trial court after hearing the parties allowed

the application filed by the plaintiff vide order dated 06.03.2023.

Vide the said order, the plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint.

Since the plaint was amended, the defendants needed to amend

their written statement to counter the amended part of the plaint.

Hence, an application (Exh.84/D) was filed by the defendants before

the trial court. The trial court, however, vide order dated 05.08.2023

recorded that the application was vague and no details were given

about the proposed amendment sought to be incorporated in the

written statement. As such, the application filed by the defendants

came to be rejected.


3.          Learned counsel for the petitioners invites my attention

to page no.38 of the Writ Petition compilation, wherein amendment

is descriptively drafted in the application seeking permission to

amend the written statement. He would submit that the application

was meticulously drafted and the portion which the defendants

wished to amend was also clearly drafted. He would submit that the

observations of the learned trial court are perverse to the record, i.e.
                                      3                       42.wp12068.2024



the application that was filed for amendment in the written

statement.


4.           With the able assistance for learned counsel for the

petitioners, I have gone through the contents of the application. It

appears that the defendants have directly filed a copy of the

amended written statement. It is not clear as to which pleadings are

sought to be granted. I find that the trial court has rightly observed

that the details of the proposed amendment sought in the written

statement are not provided.      Learned counsel submits that he may

be permitted to file a fresh application seeking amendment in the

written statement in the light of the amended plaint.          He would

submit that the petitioners would meticulously provide the proposed

amendment in the application.


5.           Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that if

such application is filed by the petitioners, the trial court may be

directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.


6.           The thing is that the plaintiff has amended his plaint. It is

but obvious that the defendants must get an opportunity to amend

their written statement to counter the amended portion of the plaint.

In view of this, Writ Petition stands dismissed with leave to the
                                    4                       42.wp12068.2024



petitioners to file an application afresh seeking amendment in the

written statement pursuant to the amendment in the plaint. If such

an application is filed by the petitioners within one month from

today, the trial court shall pass appropriate order in the light of the

observations made by this court in this order.



                                 [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                               ………..
KBP