MAGBOOL BAKSHU INAMDARversusJANABAI NANABHAU KHODADE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:35035
                                                           Writ Petition No.175/2015
                                           :: 1 ::


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                              WRIT PETITION NO.175 OF 2015


            Magbool Bakshu Inamdar                   … PETITIONER

                     VERSUS

            Janabai Nanabhau Khodade & ors.          … RESPONDENTS

                                            .......
            Mr. Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate for petitioner
            Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for R.No.1, 2, 4 & 5
                                            ....…

                                   CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                   DATE     : 6th AUGUST, 2026

            PER COURT :


            1.          The petitioner assails the order dated 20/12/2014,

            rendered by the Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parner below

            Exh.57 in Regular Civil Suit No.27/2002.


            2.          The petitioner, who entered into an agreement to

            purchase the property to the extent of 4 Hectors 93 R by the sale

            deed in the year 1978. It is thereafter the wife of the vendor of the

            petitioner presented Regular Civil Suit No.49/1978, claiming that

            the sale deed effected by the vendor of the petitioner is null and
                                               Writ Petition No.175/2015
                               :: 2 ::


void. The suit was partly allowed by judgment and decree dated

30/3/1996 with a declaration that the sale deed is null and void to

the extent of the share of the plaintiff. However, it was held to be

valid to the extent of share of the vendor i.e. defendant No.2 in the

suit i.e. Mahipati.


3.          Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner presented Regular

Civil appeal No.238/1996, which came to be partly allowed,

granting liberty to the petitioner to present fresh suit for general

partition in respect of the properties of the vendor and stayed the

execution of judgment and decree passed in a suit presented by

the wife of the vendor. Consequent to the said liberty the petitioner

presented Regular Civil Suit No.27/2002, claiming partition and

separate possession of the property belonging to the Joint Hindu

Family of Mahipati.


4.          The respondent herein resisted the suit.             Upon

completion of pleadings, issues were framed. The parties to the

suit also adduced the evidence. However, during the pendency of

the aforesaid suit, the petitioner, upon coming to know that the

property bearing Gat No.93, situated at village Bahirobachiwadi,

bearing Gat No.93 is not included, as such, sought inclusion of the

same by presenting an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the
                                                  Writ Petition No.175/2015
                                  :: 3 ::


Code of Civil Procedure.        The Trial Court rejected the same,

holding that it is at belated stage, which is subject matter of

challenge in the present petition.


5.            Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,

the Trial Court has committed an error while rejecting the

application seeking amendment same does not change the nature

of the suit nor it cause prejudice to the defendants. Immediately

upon coming to know in relation to the left out property, the

amendment is sought. The same essentially ought to have been

allowed by the Trial Court.       In support of his submission, the

learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Life

Insurance Corporation Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited

[2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729].


6.            Per contra, Mr. Jadhavar, learned counsel for the

respondent has supported the impugned order, submitting that the

application is presented at belated stage and as such, it is hit by

proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the request of the

petitioner.


7.            Upon hearing learned counsel for the litigating sides
                                                    Writ Petition No.175/2015
                                  :: 4 ::


and perusal of the material on record, it is settled principle that,

generally all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary

for determining the real question in controversy between litigating

parties ought to be allowed, provided it does not cause prejudice to

other side.


8.            The nature of the amendment which seeks inclusion of

the property belonging to the Joint Family, would certainly avoid the

multiplicity of the proceedings, given the claim of the petitioner

against the vendor is to the extent of 4 Hectors 93 R area of the

sale deed in his favour by his vendor Mahipati.


9.            The proposed amendment, in any case, does not

prejudice seek withdrawal of any admission made by the party or

the claim can be regarded as time barred. Thus, considering the

fact that the prayer for amendment generally is required to be

allowed, if it does not change the nature of the suit or prejudice the

defence of the defendant.


10.           The Court ought to avoid hyper-technical approach and

instead adopt a liberal approach in matters of amendment. The

proposed amendment would enable the Court to consider the issue

in its entirety and would further avoid multiplicity of litigation.
                                               Writ Petition No.175/2015
                               :: 5 ::




11.        In that view of the matter, the order rendered by the

Trial Court while rejecting the application deserves to be regarded

as unsustainable. As such, same deserves to be quashed and set

aside and resultantly, the application presented by the petitioner

below Exh.57 deserves to be allowed.


12.        In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order

dated 20/12/2014, rendered by the Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division,

Parner below Exh.57 in Regular Civil Suit No.27/2002 is quashed

and set aside. Resultantly, the application Exh.-57 is allowed.


13.        Considering that the suit is of the year 2002, the

concerned Court is requested to make an endeavour to conclude

the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from

today.




                                   (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)




fmp/-