SHETIBA GURAPPA DANDGULE AND ANOTHERversusSHAKUNTALABAI HANMANT CHOUGHULE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:12309
                                                  1                         WP 12264-2019.odt




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 12264 OF 2019

                         SHETIBA GURAPPA DANDGULE AND ANOTHER
                                         VERSUS
                      SHAKUNTALABAI HANMANT CHOUGHULE AND OTHERS

                                                 …
             Ms. Medha P. Patel h/f. Mr. Milind Patil – Advocate for Petitioners
             Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar – Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                                 …

                                   CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                   DATE          : 18.03.2026

             ORDER:
             1.      Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for

             respondent No.2.


             2.      The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2019

             passed below Exhibit 149 in Regular Civil Suit No.237 of 2011 by the

             learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ausa, District Latur, whereby

             the application filed by the petitioners/original plaintiffs for amendment

             of plaint came to be rejected.


             3.      Learned Counsel, Ms. Medha P. Patel holding for Mr. Milind Patil,

             for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners had filed Regular Civil

             Suit No.237 of 2011 for conveyance in respect of the suit property

             bearing Survey No.142/B/2 admeasuring 22 Acres 8 Gunthas, to the
                                     2                          WP 12264-2019.odt


extent of 4 acres land situated at village Ausa. She submits that the

petitioners had initially filed an application seeking injunction restraining

the respondents from alienating the suit property however, the same

came to be rejected, which was also confirmed by order dated

07.07.2012 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2011. Being

aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.5802 of 2012.


4.    Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that during the

pendency of the said proceedings, respondent No.2 alienated the suit

land. The said writ petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioners

to add the purchaser as party defendant. Accordingly, the purchaser was

impleaded as defendant No.3. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an

application at Exhibit 149 seeking amendment of the plaint by

incorporating paragraph 9A and by adding a prayer for declaration that

the sale-deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is

not binding on the petitioners/plaintiffs. She submits that the said

amendment is based on subsequent events and is necessary for effective

adjudication of the dispute. It is contended that the proposed amendment

would not change the nature of the suit, and therefore, the learned Trial

Court ought to have allowed the same.


5.    Per contra, learned Counsel Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar for respondent

No.2 submits that the petitioners are required to prove their original case

as pleaded and, though the purchaser has been added as a party
                                     3                         WP 12264-2019.odt


defendant, such amendment seeking declaration cannot be permitted at

this stage. He submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the

application.


6.    Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and upon

perusal of the impugned order, it is not in dispute that defendant No.2

has executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No.3 during the

pendency of the suit. Pursuant thereto, the purchaser has been impleaded

as defendant No.3. In that view of the matter, the petitioners seek to

bring on record the subsequent event and also seek a declaration that the

sale-deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not

binding on them. In my considered opinion, such an amendment is

necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy

between the parties. The proposed amendment does not change the

nature of the suit. On the contrary, it is based on subsequent

developments and would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. No prejudice

would be caused to the defendants, as they would get an opportunity to

contest the amended pleadings. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was

not justified in rejecting the application. In view of the above, I am

inclined to allow the present petition by setting aside the order under

challenge.


7.    The Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 27.02.2019 passed

below Exhibit 149 in Regular Civil Suit No.237 of 2011 by the learned
                                        4                         WP 12264-2019.odt


Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ausa, District Latur, is quashed and set

aside subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- (rupees Five Thousands only).


8.       The application at Exhibit 149 stands allowed, subject to payment

of aforesaid costs to the Advocate’s Bar Association Library, Bombay High

Court Bench at Aurangabad, within a period of three (3) weeks from

today.


9.       Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.




                                            [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                      JUDGE


Pooja Kale/