Bombay High Court
SMT. PRABHAVATIDEVI JANGBAHADUR SINGH AND ANRversusSHRI. RAMSEVAK MANEKRAJ SINGH DECD (DELETED) AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The High Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the trial court’s order permitting amendment of the plaint.
Summary
The petitioners, who are the original defendants, filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the trial court's order permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint during the cross‑examination stage. The amendment sought to add facts relating to events that occurred after the suit was filed, which the petitioners argued was untimely and intended to delay the possession suit. The High Court observed that the amendment was filed after the cross‑examination of the plaintiff’s first witness, but noted that the amendment did not prejudice the defendants as they could file an additional written statement. The Court found no valid reason to interfere with the trial court’s discretionary jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition. It directed the defendants to file any additional written statement within six weeks and urged both parties to cooperate for early disposal of the suit.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in allowing amendment of the plaint at the stage of cross‑examination.
- Whether there is any ground for interference with the trial court’s order under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Subjects
- amendment of plaint
- Civil Procedure Code
- Article 227
- writ petition
- possession suit
- trial court discretion
- delay tactics
Judgment
36-wp-12508-2019.doc
varsha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12508 OF 2019
Smt. Prabhavatidevi Jangbahadur Singh and … Petitioners
Anr
vs.
Shri Ramsevak Manekraj Singh … Respondents
Deceased(deleted) and Anr
Mr. Jitendra Damani for the Petitioners
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik a/w. Ms. Laxmi Mishra i/b. Kaushik and Co.
for Respondent No.2/Orig. Plaintiff.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 21st AUGUST 2026
Digitally
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA VIJAY
VIJAY RAJGURU
RAJGURU Date:
2026.08.21
18:48:08
+0530 ORDER:
1. This writ petition is filed by the original defendants to
challenge the order passed by the trial court granting permission to
amend the plaint. The application for amendment was made on the
ground that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff had applied
for probate and the particulars were sought to be added in the
plaint.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Page no. 1 of 3
36-wp-12508-2019.doc
application was filed after the cross examination of the first witness
of the plaintiffs was commenced. Hence, in the absence of any valid
reason for filing such an application after the commencement of
trial, the amendment could have been allowed. He therefore submits
that the impugned order would warrant interference by this Court.
3. I have perused the papers. During the stage of cross-
examination of the plaintiffs’ witness, this application was filed. The
amendment sought to be added is regarding the event occurred
after filing of the suit. The suit is filed for possession. Hence, there is
no benefit to the plaintiffs by filing an application at the stage of trial
with an intention to delay the trial. So far as the defendants is
concerned, it is always open for the defendants to file an additional
written statement in response to the proposed amendment. The trial
court has considered all these aspects before permitting
amendment to the plaint. No prejudice is caused to the defendants.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the
reasons recorded in the impugned order, I do not find any ground to
exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order.
5. The writ petition is dismissed.
Page no. 2 of 3
36-wp-12508-2019.doc
6. The petitioners i.e. the defendants, are at liberty to file the
additional written statement if not yet filed in response to the
amended plaint. The written statement, if any, shall be filed within
six weeks from today.
7. The writ petition is dismissed.
8. The suit is of 2007. Hence, the parties shall cooperate for
early disposal of the suit without seeking any unnecessary
adjournments.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 3 of 3
Checking your session…