Bombay High Court
SURAJKUMAR SANTOSH LOHGAONKAR U/G PALANKARTA CHANDRAKANT NAGORAO POTDARversusHAJI SALAUDDIN AAINODDIN AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The amendment was not necessary to the real controversy and the trial court's rejection was upheld.
Summary
The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking declaration and injunction and later applied, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, to amend the plaint to include a controversy over certain mutation records. The trial court rejected the amendment, noting that the plaintiff already possessed 91R of land and the injunction covered only 80R, leaving no record of possession of the remaining 11R. The petitioner appealed the decision through a writ petition, arguing that the amendment did not alter the nature of the suit, was not filed at a belated stage, and was necessary for a just determination of the dispute. The High Court examined the trial court’s findings and held that the proposed amendment was not essential to the real controversy between the parties and therefore could be lawfully rejected. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the court indicating that the petitioner may still challenge the Court Commissioner’s report or file a fresh amendment if genuine necessity arises.
Issues considered
- Whether an amendment to the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC should be allowed when it does not change the nature of the suit but is alleged to be necessary for justice.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 6 Rule 17
Subjects
- amendment of plaint
- Order 6 Rule 17
- Civil Procedure Code
- injunction
- mutation record
- writ petition
- trial court discretion
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38204
1
936-wp-213-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 213 OF 2023
Surajkumar Santosh Lohgaonkar U/g Palankarta Chandrakant
Nagorao Potdar
VERSUS
Haji Salauddin Aainoddin And Others
...
Mr. A. R. Mharalkar h/f Ms. S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the
Petitioner
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
. Petitioner has filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge
Senior Division, Biloli seeking declaration and injunction.
During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an
application below Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code
for adding paragraph in the plaint. By way of the said
application, the petitioner sought to bring on record a
controversy and objection as regards to certain mutation
records. In respect of the mutation record sought to be
brought on record, the petitioner had also stated the reason
sought to be incorporated by way of proposed amendment.
Vide impugned order dated 18.10.2022, the Trial Court
pleased to reject the application filed for amendment at
Exhibit-47.
2. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this
Court.
2
936-wp-213-2023
3. Mr. A. R. Mharalkar h/f Ms. S. S. Kulkarni, learned
Advocate for the petitioner submits that the amendment
would not change the nature of suit. It is not the case that the
application is filed at belated stage. In fact considering the
controversy involved in the suit and to arrive at proper
conclusion at the end of trial, it would be in the interest of
justice if the Trial Court allows the amendment application.
He would submit that the application was perfectly covered
under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code and he
ought to have permitted to amend the plaint.
4. None for the respondent.
5. I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and
also perused the contents of impugned order dated
18.10.2022 passed by the Trial Court. The substantial
amendment which the petitioner wants to bring on record is
in respect of mutation record. The Trial Court while rejecting
the application has observed that as per the report submitted
by the Court Commissioner, the plaintiff had possession over
91R land located in gut no.83. It is further observed that the
temporary injunction application was allowed to the extent of
80R only. As such, there is nothing on record to show that
possession of 11 R land was given to the petitioner.
6. In view of this, I concur with the findings recorded by
the Trial Court as the proposed amendment is not necessary
for determining the real controversy between the parties
before the Trial Court. True that the amendment may not
3
936-wp-213-2023
change the nature of suit; however, that is not the sole criteria
for either allowing or rejecting the application for amendment
in the pleadings. If the amendment is not at all necessary or
not further relevant to the real controversy, the Court is
justified in rejecting such application. I do not find any error
in the findings recorded by the learned Judge of the Trial
Court. Resultantly, Writ Petition stands dismissed.
7. Needless to mention, the report submitted by the Court
Commissioner is always subject to challenge by a party.
8. The petitioner is at liberty to raise his objection against
the report prepared and placed on record by the Court
Commissioner. The petitioner is also at liberty to file an
application for amendment if necessity arises. If such
application is filed, the Trial Court shall deal it on its own
merit and pass appropriate order.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2026
Checking your session…