Bombay High Court

SADANAND ARVIND KHANDAGALEversusSNEHA PRAMOD MAHAJAN AND ORS

Decided: 20 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The amendment application was set aside for lack of sufficient particulars, with liberty granted to re‑apply with proper details.

Summary

The petitioner challenged a June 27, 2019 order of the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Baramati, which allowed the plaintiff’s application to amend the plaint. The amendment sought to insert a paragraph stating that the suit property would not be partitioned and that certain defendants need not be joined. The High Court found that the amendment application lacked sufficient particulars to show necessity for resolving the real controversy and therefore could not be approved without further detail. The court set aside the trial court’s order, granting the plaintiff liberty to re‑apply with better particulars, subject to any objections the defendants may raise. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

What is the adequacy of the plaintiff’s amendment application under the Civil Procedure Code?
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the amendment without requiring better particulars?

Subjects

amendment of plaint
civil procedure
specific relief
partition suit
jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:34404
             k                              1/3                     11 wp 1731.20 as.doc




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.1731 OF 2020


             Sadanand Arvind Khandagale                                ....Petitioner
                  V/S
             Sneha Pramod Mahajan & Ors.                               ....Respondents
                                              _________

             Mr. Sujay H. Gangal a/w Mr. Harshal N. Mule for the Petitioner.

                                              __________


                                       CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                       DATE : 20 AUGUST 2026.

             P.C.:


             1.       By this Petition, Petitioner has challenged order dated 27 June
             2019 passed by Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Baramati, allowing the
             Application at Exhibit-31 for amendment of the Plaint.


             2.       I have heard Mr. Gangal, the learned counsel appearing for the
             Petitioner. Despite being served none has appeared on behalf of the
             Respondents.


             3.       Perusal of the Application for amendment at Exhibit-31 would
             indicate that Plaintiff herself has sought to plead in paragraph 5A that
             the suit property at serial No.1A which is proposed to be made a subject
             matter of suit is not sought to be partitioned. Thus, no relief is sought in
             katkam                               Page No. 1 of 3
k                                     2/3                        11 wp 1731.20 as.doc




respect of property which is sought to be incorporated in the suit. So far
as proposed Defendant Nos.6 and 7 are concerned, Plaintiff herself has
made a statement that they need not even appear in the suit. Proposed
paragraph 5A sought to be inserted in the Plaint reads thus:

         "५अ) "दावा कलम १अ मधील मिळकत सी.स. नं.१४९ हावादी यांना वाटप तूर्त वाटप
         मागावयाची नाही तो आहे तसाच एकत्रात ठे वण्यात यावा. त्यामुळे या दाव्यात प्रतिवादी
         नं.६ व ७ यांना आवश्यक पक्षकार म्हणून समाविष्ट केले ले आहे. प्रतिवादी नं.६ व ७
         यांना आवश्यकता वाटल्यास त्यांनी दाव्यात हजर रहावे. त्याचा खर्च वादीवर पडू नये.”


4.       The amendment Application thus does not make out as to how the
amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real
question of controversy between the parties. Without appreciating this
position, the Trial Court has proceeded to allow the Application. It was
necessary for the Plaintiff to give better particulars of the proposed
amendment. The Application at Exhibit-31 lacks any particulars for
making out the case for amendment of the Plaint.


5.       Impugned order dated 27 June 2019 is accordingly to set aside.
Liberty is however granted to the Plaintiff to reapply for amendment by
giving better particulars subject to all legal objections that can be raised
by the Defendants challenging the proposed amendment. It is clarified
that this observation shall not be read as it this Court has permitted
Plaintiff to amend the Plaint by filing the fresh Application. In the event
fresh Application is made, the Court will take into consideration the
stage at which amendment is introduced and the need for amending the
suit.



katkam                                       Page No. 2 of 3
                         k                               3/3                          11 wp 1731.20 as.doc




                         6.       Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. There shall
                         be no order as to costs.


                                                                                 (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)




                          katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam                                 Page No. 3 of 3
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/08/2026 18:29:46

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…