Bombay High Court
M/S. MODI BUILDERSversusMRS. JUMANA YUSUF DARUWALA nee MISS. JUMANBAI ZAKIRUDDIN AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Rejected
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
The trial court's order allowing deletion of prayer clauses and rejecting the addition of paragraph 7(b) was lawful, and the writ petitions challenging it were dismissed.
Summary
The High Court considered two writ petitions challenging a trial court's order that allowed the plaintiff to delete certain prayer clauses in an amendment to the plaint but refused the addition of a new paragraph concerning service of summons on a defendant. The defendants argued that the order permitting deletion of prayers was improper. The Court observed that the amendment was filed at the pre‑trial stage, and the defendants could still file an additional written statement to address any changes, rendering their challenge unnecessary. No illegality or perversity was found in the trial court's decision, and the Court held that there was no ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, both writ petitions were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in allowing deletion of prayer clauses in the amended plaint.
- Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the addition of paragraph 7(b) relating to service of summons.
- Whether the defendants could legitimately challenge the order permitting deletion of prayers at the pre‑trial stage.
- Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 is appropriate for interfering with the trial court's amendment order.
Subjects
- amendment of plaint
- deletion of prayer clauses
- service of summons
- writ petition
- Article 227
- pre‑trial amendment
- civil procedure
Judgment
27-wp-1859-2017-wp-967-2015.doc
varsha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1859 OF 2017
M/s. Modi Builders … Petitioner
vs.
Mrs. Jumana Yusuf Daruwala nee Miss. … Respondents
Jumanbai Zakiruddin and Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 967 OF 2015
Smt. Jumana Zakiuddin Abdelly Rangwala and … Petitioners
Ors
vs.
M/s. Modi Builders and Ors … Respondents
Mr. Joel John Carlos for the Petitioners in WP/1859/17.
Digitally
Adv. Heenal Wadhwa for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in WP/1859/17
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA VIJAY
VIJAY RAJGURU and for Petitioner in WP/967/15.
RAJGURU Date:
2026.04.09
16:49:23
+0530 CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 8th APRIL 2026
ORDER:
1. Writ Petition No. 1859 of 2017, is filed by the original plaintiff.
Writ Petition No. 967 of 2015, is filed by defendant nos. 1 to 4,
challenging the order passed by the trial court partly allowing the
application for amendment filed by the plaintiff. By the amendment
application, the plaintiff prayed for deletion of certain prayers as
mentioned in paragraph no. 5 of the application. The said deletion is
Page no. 1 of 2
27-wp-1859-2017-wp-967-2015.doc
allowed; however, addition of paragraph no. 7(b) is refused. The
proposed amendment in paragraph no. 7(b), pertains to service of
summons upon defendant no.7. Hence, the said amendment is not
necessary in the suit. The amendment is therefore rightly rejected
by the trial court.
2. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, have challenged the order to the
extent permitting the deletion of the prayer clauses.
3. The application was filed at the pre-trial stage. I therefore, see
no reason for the defendants to challenge the order permitting
deletion of prayers. The said defendants can always file additional
written statement to the amended plaint.
4. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order
warranting any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Hence, the writ petitions are rejected.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 2 of 2
Checking your session…