ATUL ISHWARDAS CHORDIA AND ANRversusVIPESH PRAVIN SONIGARA

2026:BHC-AS:17869

                                                                             7 wp 2956 of 2026.doc

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                     WRIT PETITION NO.2956 OF 2026

            Atul Ishwardas Chordia and Anr.                       ...   Petitioners
                   versus
            Vipesh Pravin Sonigara                                …     Respondent

            Mr. S.S.Patwardhan with Ms. Mrinal Shelar, for Petitioners.
            Mr. S.C.Wakankar, for Respondent.

                                       CORAM:   N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                       DATE :   10 APRIL 2026

            ORAL ORDER :

            1.       Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

            2.       The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 11 February 2026

            passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pune, whereby the learned Civil Judge

            ruled that the application for amendment of the plaint preferred by the

            Respondent-Plaintiff would be decided before deciding the application for

            rejection of the plaint filed by the Petitioners – Defendants.

            3.       Mr. Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the

            learned Civil Judge has given the aforesaid ruling on the sole premise that the

            two judgments of this Court in the cases of Pramod s/o Manoharrao Konge

            V/s. Shantaram Balkrushna Dhok1 and Bharat Travellers V/s. Sumitrabai

            vinayakrao Buty2, were rendered earlier in point of time than the judgment in


            1    2017(3) Mh.L.J. 223
            2    2017(6) Mh.L.J. 703

            SSP                                                                    1/7
                                                               7 wp 2956 of 2026.doc

the case of Akshay Quenum V/s. Royce Savio Pereira 3. Mr. Patwardhan

would submit that, the learned Civil Judge was required to examine the ratio

of the judgments in each of the cases, as all were rendered by the learned

Single Judges and then determined which judgment would govern the facts of

the case at hand.

4.      Mr. Patwardhan further submitted that, if the amendment application is

heard and decided in favour of the Plaintiff, then the ground of bar of limitation

on which the Defendants were seeking rejection of the plaint, would be

rendered nugatory. A very strong reliance was placed by Mr. Patwardhan on

the judgment in the case of Akshay Quenim (supra), wherein this Court has

enunciated that the approach that the Civil Court would be required to adopt

in cases wherein, after the application for rejection of the plaint is filed, the

Plaintiff takes up an application for amendment in the plaint, in regard to the

order of hearing of such applications.

5.      In opposition to this, Mr. Wakankar, learned Counsel for the

Respondent – Plaintiff, submitted that the learned Civil Judge has correctly

ruled that, in a situation of the present nature, the application for amendment

is required to be heard first and this position is settled by the judgments in the

cases of Pramod Manoharrao Konge (supra) and Bharat Travellers

(supra).


3    2025 SCC Online Bom 3600

SSP                                                                  2/7
                                                                     7 wp 2956 of 2026.doc

6.      The approach to be adopted by the Civil Court is informed by the nature

of the order of rejection of the plaint, especially the consequences it entails.

Rule 13 of Order VII provides that, notwithstanding the rejection of the plaint

on any of the grounds mentioned in Rule 11, the Plaintiff shall not be

precluded from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Thus,

when the Plaintiff institutes a fresh suit on the same cause of action, the

Plaintiff need not be relegated to suffer the order of rejection of the plaint and

then, after making amends, institute a fresh suit, is the principle which informs

the decisions in the cases of Pramod Manoharrao Konge (supra) and

Bharat Travellers (supra).

7.      The position in law as regards the binding efficacy of the judgments

where conflicting views are taken by the Benches of co-equal strength is no

longer res-integra.        The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of

Sundeep Kumar Bafna V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 4 illuminates the

path.     The Supreme Court has delineated the approach in the following

words:

                “19.    It cannot be over-emphasised that the discipline
                demanded by a precedent or the disqualification or diminution
                of a decision on the application of the per incuriam rule is of
                great importance, since without it, certainty of law, consistency
                of rulings and comity of Courts would become a costly
                casualty. A decision or judgment can be per incuriam any

4    AIR 2014 SC 1745

SSP                                                                        3/7
                                                                     7 wp 2956 of 2026.doc

            provision in a statute, rule or regulation, which was not brought
            to the notice of the Court. A decision or judgment can also be
            per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of
            a previously pronounced judgment of a Co-equal or Larger
            Bench; or if the decision of a High Court is not in consonance
            with the views of this Court. It must immediately be clarified
            that the per incuriam rule is strictly and correctly applicable to
            the ratio decidendi and not to obiter dicta. It is often
            encountered in High Courts that two or more mutually
            irreconcilable decisions of the Supreme Court are cited at the
            Bar. We think that the inviolable recourse is to apply the
            earliest view as the succeeding ones would fall in the category
            of per incuriam.”            (emphasis supplied)


8.    In the case at hand, in the considered view of this Court, the question of

conflict in the judgments rendered by the Bench of co-equal strength does not

arise. The observations of the learned Single Judge in the case of Akshay

Quenim (supra), make this position abundantly clear.

9.    Mr. Patwardhan placed reliance on the following enunciation of law by

the learned Single Judge in the case of Akshay Quenim (supra) :

            “9.    In my opinion, it is not in every case that the Court
            would consider the amendment application first, and then
            consider the application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection
            of plaint or under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for return of plaint.
            The correct approach that the Court would have to follow
            would be to examine the plaint as it stood when filed, and
            consider whether on a holistic reading of the plaint, the
            Court totally lacked or inherently lacked jurisdiction to

SSP                                                                         4/7
                                                              7 wp 2956 of 2026.doc

      entertain the suit. If it did, it may not be appropriate for the
      Court, if it inherently lacks jurisdiction, either because the
      statute bars its jurisdiction or where the statute confers
      jurisdiction to try particular types of suits before a different
      forum, to allow an amendment application and bring a suit
      within its jurisdiction.
      10. Similarly, if the plaint as originally filed, was of a
      valuation which was higher than the pecuniary jurisdiction of
      the Court which had issued summons, such Court would
      lack the pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.
      Such a Court would then not be permitted to allow an
      amendment to reduce the value of a suit, to bring it within
      the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. In other words, the
      Court would have to examine in the first place, whether its
      act of issuing summons in a suit, where it lacked the
      jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, (either because it was
      beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction or because it was barred by
      a law), was itself void and a nullity.
      11.    With this principle in mind, it was incumbent upon the
      Trial Court to have first examined the plaint as it stood when
      filed and concluded for itself whether the plaint partook of a
      commercial suit, as argued by the Petitioners/Defendants. It
      ought to have also examined simultaneously whether the
      amendment application, if granted, would change the nature
      of the suit and bring it within the jurisdiction of the Court i.e.
      to see whether it would amount to converting what was
      originally a commercial suit into a regular civil suit, which the
      Trial Court would otherwise have jurisdiction to entertain. It
      is only after examining the effect of the amendment on the
      plaint and the averments made in the plaint as it originally


SSP                                                                 5/7
                                                                       7 wp 2956 of 2026.doc

             stood, that the Trial Court would have to decide whether
             amendment should be allowed, and conversely, the
             application for return of the plaint would have to be rejected.
             The converse equally applies.
             12.   Unfortunately, the Trial Court, has in para 10 of its
             order, taken a view that it had to consider the amendment
             application and whether its grant would bring the suit within
             its pecuniary jurisdiction, and only if amendment application
             fails to bring the suit within its jurisdiction, the application for
             return of plaint would be considered on merits. This, in my
             view, is an erroneous approach, as what is necessary is for
             the Court to consider whether, in the first place it would have
             the jurisdiction to issue summons/notice in the suit as
             framed, and if it totally lacked jurisdiction, it would either
             have to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 or return the
             plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 to be presented before a Court
             with jurisdiction. It would also have to examine the effect of
             the amendment, which, if allowed, would bring the suit,
             which was otherwise barred, within its jurisdiction.”


10.   A correct reading of the aforesaid enunciation of law, in the considered

view of this Court, indicates that this Court in Akshay Quenim (supra) was

dealing in a situation where the contention was that Civil Court lacked

inherent jurisdiction. If the Court lacks inherent jurisdiction, then the question

whether the Court lacking jurisdiction could entertain an application for

amendment of the plaint would warrant adjudication.                In that context, this

Court has enunciated that the correct procedure that the Court ought to follow


SSP                                                                          6/7
                                                                                       7 wp 2956 of 2026.doc

                      would be to examine the plaint as it stood when filed, and consider whether

                      on a holistic reading of the plaint, the Court totally lacked or inherently lacked

                      jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

                      11.      The ratio enunciated in the case of Akshay Quenim (supra), thus,

                      cannot be imported to all the situations where the application for amendment

                      is filed after the Defendant takes out an application for rejection of the plaint to

                      hold that, in such an eventuality, the Court must first decide the application for

                      rejection of the plaint.

                      12.      The case at hand is governed by the judgments in the cases of

                      Pramod Manoharrao Konge (supra) and Bharat Travellers (supra), as the

                      Civil Court cannot be said to be lacking in inherent jurisdiction. Thus, the

                      order of hearing of the applications, determined by the learned Civil Judge,

                      does not warrant any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

                      13.      The Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed.




                                                                            ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                                    7/7



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/04/2026 19:52:08