Bombay High Court
YASH JAGDIP MEHTAversusBHARATI SHARAD PARAB AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order dismissing the notice of motion is quashed and the matter is remitted to the City Civil Court for a fresh decision in line with the CPC provisions and Supreme Court precedent.
Summary
The petitioner challenged an order of the City Civil Court that dismissed a notice of motion seeking redaction of an additional written statement filed by the defendants after the plaintiff amended the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that the additional written statement went beyond the scope of the amended plaint and introduced irrelevant matters. The trial court held that the statements merely elaborated the defence and were not a counter‑claim, thus dismissing the motion. The High Court observed that the trial court failed to consider the proper legal test under Order VI Rule 7, Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC and the Supreme Court’s decision in Gurdial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja on the limits of consequential amendments. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order, restored the notice of motion to the trial court, and directed a fresh hearing in accordance with the law.
Issues considered
- Whether an additional written statement filed in response to an amendment of the plaint may introduce new matters beyond the scope of the amendment.
- Whether the trial court correctly applied Order VI Rule 7, Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC and the precedent set by Gurdial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja.
- Whether the notice of motion seeking redaction of the additional written statement should be dismissed or allowed.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VIII Rule 9, Order VI Rule 16, Order VI Rule 17, Order VI Rule 7
Subjects
- Amendment of pleadings
- Additional written statement
- Consequential amendment
- Civil Procedure Code
- Writ petition
- Quash order
- Jurisdiction
Judgment
13 WP-1651-26.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1651 OF 2026
Yash Jagdip Mehta ..Petitioner
Versus
Bharati Sharad Parab & anr. …Respondents
Mr. Rubin Vakil a/w Ms. Jesal Shah, i/b Daru Shah, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Ajit Karwande, for the Respondents.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 08th September 2026
Oral Order :-
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 07 th
October, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court in
Notice of Motion No. 963/2025 in Short Cause Suit No.
SAINATH 2889/2009 whereby the Notice of Motion taken out by the
SANJAY
BODKHE
petitioner – plaintiff seeking redaction of the portions of the
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
Date:
2026.09.10
additional written statement under the provisions of Order VI
10:06:19 +0530
Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (“CPC”) came to be
dismissed.
3. The plaintiff had taken out the said Notice of Motion
asserting that, the additional written statement filed on behalf
SAINATH, PA 1/5
13 WP-1651-26.DOC
of the Defendant Nos.1 and 3 in response to the amendment in
the plaint carried out by the plaintiff, pursuant to the order
passed by the trial Court on 24th January, 2024, travelled
beyond the amended plaint and introduced the matters which
had no relevance to pleadings introduced by way of amendment.
4. By the impugned order, the learned Judge, City Civil
Court had dismissed the Notice of Motion opining that, the
contentions in the written statement to which objections were
taken by the plaintiff as being beyond scope of the amended
plaint, were in the nature of elaboration of the defence already
set up by the defendants. It was further observed that, though
certain monetary claims were made in the additional written
statements, those claims were not in the nature of a counter-
claim.
5. The Counsel for the parties were in unison on the Plaint
that, an order of this Court in the matter of Shree Educational
Trust & anr. Vs. Dombivali Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & ors. 1,
which, in turn, refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Gurdial Singh & ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja & ors. 2,
was brought to the notice of the learned Judge, City Civil Court.
1 WP/14246/2024 dt. 12/02/2025
2 (2002) 2 SCC 445
SAINATH, PA 2/5
13 WP-1651-26.DOC
6. Evidently, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, has not
posed the correct question unto himself, which arose for
consideration, in the light of the provisions of Order VI Rule 7
and Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC.
7. It does not appear that, the learned City Civil Court has
properly consulted the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Gurdial Singh (supra), wherein the scope of the
additional written statement in response to the amendment was
instructively expounded by the Supreme Court as under :-
“19. When one of the parties has been
permitted to amend his pleading, an
opportunity has to be given to the opposite
party to amend his pleading. The opposite
party shall also have to make an application
under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC which, of
course, would ordinarily and liberally be
allowed. Such amendments are known as a
consequential amendments. The phrase
"consequential amendment" finds mention in
the decision of this Court in Bikram Singh and
Ors. V/s. Ram Baboo and Ors.3 The expression
is judicially recognized. While granting leave to
amend a pleading by way of consequential
amendment the Court shall see that the plea
sought to be introduced is by way of an answer
3 (1982) 1 SCC 485
SAINATH, PA 3/5
13 WP-1651-26.DOC
to the plea previously permitted to be
incorporated by way of amendment by the
opposite party. A new plea cannot be permitted
to be added in the garb of a consequential
amendment, though it can be applied by way of
an independent or primary amendment.
20. Some of the High Courts permit, as a
matter of practice, an additional pleading, by
way of response to the amendment made in the
pleadings by opposite party, being filed with
the leave of the Court. Where it is permissible
to do so, care has to be taken to see that the
additional pleading is confined to an answer to
the amendment made by the opposite party
and is not misused for the purpose of setting
up altogether new pleas springing a surprise
on the opposite party and the Court. A
reference to Order VI Rule 7 of the CPC is
apposite which provides that no pleading shall,
except by way of amendment, raise any new
ground of claim or contain any allegation of
fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of
the party pleading the same.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. As the learned Judge, City Civil Court, has not framed the
correct question which required determination, the impugned
order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Notice of
Motion remitted back to the learned Judge, City Civil Court for a
SAINATH, PA 4/5
13 WP-1651-26.DOC
fresh decision on merits in the light of the governing provisions
of law and precedents.
9. Hence, the following order :-
::ORDER::
(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 07th October,
2025 in Notice of Motion No. 963/2025 stands
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Notice of Motion No. 963/2025 is
restored to the file of learned Judge, City Civil
Court.
(iv) The learned Judge, City Civil Court is
requested to hear and decide the Notice of
Motion afresh in the light of governing
provisions of law and precedents and pass an
appropriate order in accordance with law.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA 5/5
Checking your session…