Bombay High Court
AMRUTA AVINASH AKOLKAR AND OTHERSversusPUSHPABAI KASTURCHAND BADJATE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The amendment does not change the nature of the suit and the trial court’s order allowing it is affirmed.
Summary
The petitioners filed a civil suit seeking a perpetual injunction and described the property boundaries, including the eastern side referencing land of Mr. Tarvindersingh Dhillan. The respondents, in their written statement and counter‑claim, contested the eastern boundary, later discovering that part of the land had indeed been sold to Mr. Dhillan and applied to amend their pleadings to reflect this. The trial court allowed the amendment, holding it did not alter the nature of the suit, citing the Supreme Court’s liberal amendment principle. The petitioners challenged this order by filing a writ petition, arguing that the amendment changed the suit’s character. The High Court examined whether the amendment affected the nature of the defence and found no prejudice to the petitioners, noting they could still contest the amended averments. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as being without merit.
Issues considered
- Whether amendment of the written statement and counter‑claim to correct the description of property boundaries changes the nature of the civil suit.
- Whether the trial court’s order permitting such amendment should be set aside on the ground of prejudice to the plaintiff.
Subjects
- amendment of pleadings
- civil suit
- perpetual injunction
- boundary dispute
- written statement
- counter claim
- liberal amendment principle
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:7705
(1) 935-wp-1733-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1733 OF 2026
AMRUTA AVINASH AKOLKAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
PUSHPABAI KASTURCHAND BADJATE AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Shaikh Ashraf Patel, Advocate for the Petitioners.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C.:-
1. The present writ petition takes exception to order dated
09.12.2025 passed below Exhibit-19 by Civil Judge Junior Division,
Aurangabad in Regular Civil Suit No.979/2024, whereby
application for amendment submitted by respondents came to be
allowed.
2. The petitioners are plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit
No.979/2024. The suit is instituted for decree of perpetual
injunction. The respondents/defendants appeared in suit and filed
written statement. They took stand that boundary of property,
particularly on Eastern side has been wrongly mentioned by
petitioners/plaintiffs. They contended that there is no property of
Mr. Tarvindersingh Dhillan on Eastern side of suit property, as
pleaded in plaint. The defendants also filed counter claim, wherein
they took similar plea.
3. Later on, respondents/defendants filed application for
amendment in written statement and counter claim, wherein they
(2) 935-wp-1733-2026.odt
contended that at the time of filing written statement, they had no
knowledge as to whether certain part of property was sold to Mr.
Tarvindersingh Dhillan and, therefore, they took plea in written
statement that there is no land of Mr. Tarvindersingh Dhillan on
Eastern side of suit land. Accordingly, they sought amendment in
written statement and counter claim as stipulated in paragraph
nos.4 and 5 of application for amendment. The aforesaid
application was opposed on behalf of petitioners/plaintiffs.
However, Trial Court allowed said application vide impugned order
dated 09.12.2025.
4. Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners
would submit that respondents had candidly took a plea in written
statement that four boundaries as mentioned in plaint are not
correct and they took specific objection to Eastern side boundary,
which was specified giving reference to land of Mr. Tarvindersingh
Dhillan. Now aforesaid contentions raised in written statement is
sought to be withdrawn and, therefore, there would be change in
nature of suit.
5. Having considered submissions advanced, it can be observed
that suit filed by petitioners is at nascent stage. The respondents
filed written statement, wherein they objected description of four
boundaries given in plaint, particularly to Eastern side boundary of
suit land described in plaint. It appears that, respondents have
(3) 935-wp-1733-2026.odt
also filed counter claim alongwith written statement, wherein they
reiterated their stand that land of Mr. Tarvindersingh Dhillan is
not situated on Eastern side. The application seeking amendment
appears to have been filed with contentions that defendants got
copy of sale deed and consent deed executed by predecessor in title
of plaintiffs in favour of Mr. Tarvindersingh Dhillan. Now it has
been revealed that certain portion of property sold to Mr.
Tarvindersingh Dhillan. Therefore, they sought to correct
averments made in written statement and counter claim. The
Trial Court finds that such amendment would not change nature of
suit and permitted amendment as prayed.
6. If nature of amendment is seen, it appears that, defendants
want to change stipulation as regards to boundaries of suit
property on the basis of certain documents, which came to their
knowledge during pendency of suit. Till this date, issues are not
framed. The amendment sought in written statement and counter
claim needs to be liberally granted in light of law laid down by
Supreme Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India
Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr. 1. The Trial
Court has taken pragmatic view of matter and permitted
amendment. Apparently, such amendment would not change
nature of defence raised in suit or counter claim. The petitioners
have every opportunity to dispute averments in written statement
1 AIR 2022 SC 4256.
(4) 935-wp-1733-2026.odt
or counter claim by filing their own written statement. No
prejudice would be caused to petitioners.
7. In result, Writ Petition sans merit. Hence, dismissed.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/February-2026
Checking your session…