Bombay High Court

SHIVAJI BHAGWAN PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY AND ORS.

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The trial court erred in permitting the amendment to the written statement at the final‑argument stage as it was not a mere technical correction and the respondents failed to satisfy the due‑diligence test.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the trial court's orders that allowed the respondents to amend their written statements in two civil suits concerning a sand‑stock raid. The amendment sought to change the location of the alleged sand stock from Gat No. 83 to the premises of a charitable society, which the petitioners argued was a substantive change that would prejudice their case. The respondents contended that the amendment was merely technical and necessary for deciding the controversy, relying on a Supreme Court precedent. The court examined whether the amendment at the final‑argument stage satisfied the due‑diligence test and whether it was truly technical or typographical. Finding that the amendment was substantive, untimely, and caused prejudice, the court held that the trial court had erred in jurisdiction by permitting it. Consequently, both writ petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the applications to amend the written statements were rejected.

Issues considered

Whether an amendment to a written statement at the stage of final arguments is permissible under civil procedure law.
Whether the proposed amendment is merely technical/typographical or substantive, requiring a test of due diligence.
Whether the trial court erred in jurisdiction by allowing the amendment despite potential prejudice to the petitioner.

Subjects

amendment of pleadings
written statement
civil procedure
due diligence
jurisdiction
prejudice
final arguments
sand mining raid
injunction

Judgment

                                                     38,39-WP-1353-2026 (C).doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    38 WRIT PETITION NO. 1353 OF 2026

Shivaji Bhagwan Patil                                              ...Petitioner
      Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Secretary And Ors.           ...Respondents

                    39 WRIT PETITION NO. 2031 OF 2026

Shivaji Bhagwan Patil                                     ...Petitioner
      Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Secretary Revenue And Forest
Departmentand Ors                                      ...Respondent

                                    …..
Adv. Kalebag Pushpanjali Vilas, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. J. P. Patil, AGP for the Respondents-State.
                                    …..


                                     CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                     DATE     : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

P.C. :

           Heard.

2.         The petitions are directed against the orders of rejection to

amend the written statement passed in separate suits filed by the

respondents. The petitions are dealt with by a common judgment.

3.         The respondent has filed Special Civil Suit No. 137 of 2020 and

893 of 2020 against the petitioners for declaration and injunction. The




     ZIP                                                               1 of 4
                                                      38,39-WP-1353-2026 (C).doc


cause of action was the raid conducted by the respondents for

confiscating sand stock. The place of the sand stock is the point of

controversy in the present petitions. The notice issued by respondent -

Tehsildar and the penalty are under challenge in the suit. The

respondent's claim is contested by the petitioners by filing written

statement.

4.         The parties went on trial. The parties adduced oral evidence. The

suits were posted for final arguments. At that stage, applications

Exhibits - 47 and 55 were submitted in the respective suits seeking

amendment to the written statement. Both applications were allowed

by the impugned orders.

5.         Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the test of due

diligence has not been satisfied and the Trial Court committed error of

jurisdiction. It is submitted that no reasons are assigned for taking out

the application at the fag end of the trial. It is submitted that the

amendment is not technical or typographical in nature. It seeks to

change the sand spot which would cause prejudice.

6.         Per contra, learned AGP appearing for the respondents would

support the impugned orders. It is submitted that the nature of the

proceedings would not change. The proposed amendment is technical

in nature and it is stated to be necessary for deciding controversy

involving in suit. It is lastly submitted that by relying upon the




     ZIP                                                                2 of 4
                                                       38,39-WP-1353-2026 (C).doc


judgment of the Apex Court, impugned orders are passed, and hence,

interference is not warranted.

7.          I have considered the submissions of the parties. Admittedly,

applications Exhibit - 47 and 55 were submitted when the matters were

at the stage of final arguments. The parties have led oral evidence qua

the pleadings of the parties. The impugned order are likely to revive the

proceedings.

8.          The cause of action for the petitioners to file suit was the raid

conducted by the respondents confiscating sand stock. In the written

statement, while justifying the action, the sand spot is recorded to be at

Gat No. 83 from Sherewadi. By the proposed amendment, the

respondents intended to change the said spot from Gat No. 83 to

premises of Shriram Bahu-uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Atpadi.

9.          The respondents are the authorities who conducted the raid. The

pleadings which are sought to be introduced cannot be said to be the

outcome of any subsequent events. It is incomprehensible to permit the

party to change the spot when they were already armed with necessary

material disclosing the raid.

10.         The parties have led oral evidence and the matter was at the

stage of advancing arguments. The amendment at this stage of the

proceedings would lead to the inference that to fill up the lacunae, the

applications have been made. I find that learned judge has committed




      ZIP                                                                3 of 4
                                                        38,39-WP-1353-2026 (C).doc


error of jurisdiction in permitting the amendment. It is not possible to

countenance that amendment is technical or typographical in nature.

11.         Though there are judgments disclosing the ratio of adopting

liberal approach in case of amendment to written statement, the same

cannot be blanketly applied to all the cases. The suits of 2020 are at the

fag end. I find that the respondents have failed to satisfy the test of due

diligence and their applications are liable to be rejected.

12.         The counsel for the petitioners is justified in submitting that

prejudice would be caused to the client if the written statement is

permitted to be amended. Hence, I pass the following order :



                                     ::ORDER::


A.          Both writ petitions are allowed.

B.          The impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

C.          The applications Exhibit - 47 and 55 shall stand rejected.



                                                  [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




      ZIP                                                                 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…