Bombay High Court
POPAT MURLIDHAR CHAVAN DIED THROUGH LRS HEMLATA POPAT CHAVAN AND OTHERSversusCHANDGDEO CHANDRABHAN CHAVAN DIED THROUGH LRS 2 TO 4 AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the petitioners may amend the prayer to seek declaration and possession of the specified land, but may not adduce further evidence or seek remand, and must pursue the appeal on the record already before the appellate court.
Summary
The petitioners filed a regular civil suit in 2001 for partition and injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court in 2014. They appealed to the District Court, where they later sought, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, a short amendment of the prayer to declare title and possession of 5 acres of land. The District Judge rejected the amendment, prompting the petitioners to file a writ petition in the High Court. The Court examined whether such a belated amendment could be allowed despite the lapse of time and whether it would alter the nature of the suit or necessitate remand. Finding that the amendment would not change the suit’s nature and would avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Court allowed the amendment but barred any further evidence or remand, imposed costs for delay, and directed a swift disposal of the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a petition for amendment of the prayer under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is permissible at the appellate stage after a long delay.
- Whether allowing the amendment would change the nature of the original suit or require remand to the trial court.
- Whether the parties may be prohibited from adducing further evidence or seeking remand after the amendment is permitted.
Subjects
- civil procedure
- amendment of pleadings
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- limitation
- partition suit
- costs
- appellate jurisdiction
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38183
1
921-wp-13947-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13947 OF 2024
Popat Murlidhar Chavan Died Through Lrs Hemlata Popat
Chavan And Others
VERSUS
Chandgdeo Chandrabhan Chavan Died Through Lrs 2 To 4
And Others
...
Mr. S. Y. Mahajan, Advocate for the Petitioners
Ms. Aishwarya N. Tanpure h/f Mr. R. V. Gore, Advocate for
Respondent nos.3 and 4
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
. Petitioners’ Regular Civil Suit No.209 of 2001 filed
against the present respondents for partition and injunction
came to be dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment and
decree dated 30.08.2014.
2. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached
the First Appellate Court i.e. the Court of learned District
Judge, Ahmednagar, now Kopargaon. In the appeal, an
application at Exhibit-26 came to be filed under Order 6, Rule
17 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking a short amendment of
prayer for declaration as to the title to the extent of 5 Acres,
36 R located in gut no.308 and also for possession of the said
partition.
2
921-wp-13947-2024
3. It is contended by learned Advocate for the petitioners
that the Trial Court rendered its findings in respect of such
contention; however, for want of any express prayer, the suit
came to be dismissed. Accordingly, the application came to be
filed in the appellate proceedings. The said application at
Exhibit-26 was turned down by learned District Judge-1,
Kopargaon vide order dated 30.07.2024.
4. Mr. S. Y. Mahajan, learned Advocate for the petitioners
submits that the amendment would neither change the nature
of suit nor the suit needs to be remanded for any purpose if
the amendment is allowed. His contention is that in fact if the
said prayer is not permitted, again the parties will have to
engage themselves in next round of litigation starting from the
Trial Court. He fairly accepts that the suit was of 2001. The
Regular Civil Appeal is of 2014. However, the application is
filed in the year 2021.
5. He further submits that the petitioners are ready to
compensate the respondents and also undertake not to pray
before the Appellate Court for remand of the suit or for
adducing any evidence if the amendment is allowed. He also
undertakes that he will work out the appeal only on the basis
3
921-wp-13947-2024
of material and evidence before the Appellate Court and shall
not take undue advantage of the liberty, if granted by this
Court.
6. Ms. Aishwarya N. Tanpure h/f Mr. R. V. Gore, learned
Advocate for the respondent nos.3 and 4 strongly objects the
prayer. She would submit that the facts speak itself. The suit is
of 2001. The appeal is of 2004 and the proposed amendment
is sought in the year 2021. Request for the amendment first
time raised in the year 2021 is stretched by the petitioner till
2026. She would submit that by the amendment, the
petitioners cannot be allowed to fill up such lacuna in the
plaint which has closed the doors for the petitioners for the
substantial relief which they could have raised in the suit
itself.
7. It is alternatively submitted by Ms. Aishwarya N.
Tanpure, learned Advocate that if this Court allows the Writ
Petition, the petitioners be directed to proceed with the appeal
and to conclude it within a stipulated time. She further
submits that in no case, the petitioners shall be allowed to
pray to the Appellate Court for remand of the suit. Moreover,
it is also a contention of learned Advocate for the respondent
4
921-wp-13947-2024
that the petitioners must argue their appeal on the basis of
material which is placed before the Appellate Court.
8. I have heard both learned Advocates extensively. It is
true that suit is of 2001 which is dismissed long back and
appeal is filed in the year 2014. The application is filed at very
belated stage i.e. in the year 2021. Recitals of the findings
rendered by the Trial Court prima facie show that the Trial
Court has in fact discussed the issue for which the petitioner is
seeking amendment in the suit. As such, there is no necessity
for adducing any more evidence or any material in the
pending appellate proceeding.
9. I find substance in the submissions made by learned
Advocate for the petitioners that if this declaratory relief is not
adjudicated in the pending proceeding, the parties will have to
engage themselves in further round of litigation in which the
very same material would be under consideration before the
Trial Court. There is no point in multiplying the litigation
between the same parties and for the same count. In view of
this and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to
dispose of this Writ Petition by allowing the petitioners to
amend the plaint to limited extent.
5
921-wp-13947-2024
10. Simultaneously, it is directed that the petitioner shall
not attempt to adduce any more evidence nor would pray for
relegation of the matter to the Trial Court. Considering the
delayed period, yet the requirement of law to allow the parties
to agitate such issues which would take civil litigation to its
logical end, I deem it appropriate to impose some costs on the
petitioners for the delayed period and for keeping the
respondents engaged in such delayed civil proceedings.
Hence, I pass following order:
ORDER
a. Writ Petition stands allowed.
b. The petitioners are allowed to amend the
prayer clause to the extent of declaration of 5
Acre 36 R in gut no.308 and possession for such
land.
c. Learned District Judge, Kopargaon Shall
not allow the petitioner to adduce any evidence
nor shall entertain prayer for relegation of the
litigation to the Trial Court.
d. The petitioners shall agitate their appeal
only on the basis of the evidence which is before
the District Court.
e. The respondents are at liberty to oppose
the prayer which is sought to be amended by the
petitioners in the said petition on every count
including limitation, deficiency and absence of
pleading etc.
6
921-wp-13947-2024
f. Learned District Judge, Kopargaon shall
adjudicate the prayer which the petitioner is
permitted to amend on its own merit and on the
pleadings and evidence which is already on
record.
g. The appeal shall be decided within a period
of three months from today.
h. The petitioners shall not seek a single
adjournment to work out the appeal.
i. The petitioners shall deposit the costs of
Rs.25,000/- in the District Court, Kopargaon and
the respondents are permitted to withdraw such
costs.
j. With these directions, the Writ Petition
stands disposed of.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2026
Checking your session…