Bombay High Court
SRIKANT NARAYAN MANDREKAR AND ANRversusLAXMI LAXMAN MANDREKAR AND 10 ORS
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The amendment to add the alias "Manjrekar" to the plaintiff’s name is permissible, and the trial court’s refusal was erroneous.
Summary
The petitioners filed a civil suit for partition of a property in Goa, but the plaintiff’s name in the suit differed from the name recorded in the 1970 sale deed. Petitioners sought to amend the title clause of the plaint to add the alias "Manjrekar" to reconcile the discrepancy. The trial court rejected the amendment, invoking the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which bars amendments after the trial has commenced. The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging that order. The High Court held that the trial court’s reliance on the proviso was misplaced, as the amendment merely corrected a name and was necessary for adjudicating the dispute, and therefore allowed the amendment, quashed the trial court’s order, and granted the writ.
Issues considered
- Whether an amendment to the title clause of a plaint to correct a party's name can be permitted after the commencement of trial despite the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing the amendment on a hyper‑technical ground.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VI Rule 17 (Proviso)
Subjects
- partition suit
- amendment of plaint
- title clause
- name discrepancy
- CPC Order VI Rule 17
- writ petition
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1921
(1) wp-342-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.342 OF 2024
MR. SHRIKANT NARAYAN MANDREKAR AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
MRS. LAXMI LAXMAN MANDREKAR AND OTHERS
…
Mr. Arjun Naik (through V.C.) Advocate for Petitioners.
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
FINAL ORDER:-
1. The petitioners impugns order dated 06.03.2024 passed by Civil
Judge Junior Division, Bicholim, Goa in Regular Civil Suit
No.147/2014/B, thereby rejecting petitioners’ application seeking
amendment in title clause of plaint, particularly as regards to name of
petitioner no.1.
2. The petitioners instituted Regular Civil Suit No.147/2014/B
seeking relief of partition in respect of property Gorbata and Molo
within limit of Sanquleim Municipal Council bearing Survey No.33/4 of
village Maulingem South. According to petitioner, said property was
purchased by petitioner no.1 alongwith his deceased brother Laxman
Mandrekar @ Manjarekar vide registered sale deed dated 31.01.1970.
Thereafter, houses were constructed over that property. In order to
partition said property, petitioners have instituted suit. The name of
petitioner no.1 is recorded in sale deed as Shrikant Narayan Manjrekar.
However, while instituting suit, petitioner no.1 stated his name as
Shrikant Narayan Mandrekar. The suit proceeded. When it was at the
(2) wp-342-2024.odt
stage of recording evidence, difference in surname of petitioner no.1 in
sale deed was surfaced. The petitioner, therefore, filed application
seeking permission to amend title clause of plaint to add his name alias
Shrikant Narayan Manjrekar. The Trial Court rejected application
mainly on ground that amendment is brought after commencement of
trial and there is no explanation in terms of Proviso to Order VI Rule 17
of Code of Civil Procedure.
3. The notice of present Writ Petition was served upon respondents.
The respondent nos.2 and 3 had appeared through Advocate Aadityasen
Sardesai Rane whose appearance was discharged by order dated
14.08.2025. The Registry recorded that respondent nos.2 and 3 have
duly acknowledged No Objection Certificate dated 23.06.2025.
However, respondent nos.2 and 3 did not appear before this Court either
personally or through Advocate.
4. Mr. Arjun Naik, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners
invites attention of this Court to contents of sale deed and Form I and
XIV of Survey No.33/4, which shows that petitioner no.1’s name has
been recorded as Shrikant Narayan Manjrekar alongwith his brother
Laxman Narayan Manjrekar in record of rights. The petitioners sought
to bring on record amendment with a view to reconcile repugnancy in
his name. The application for amendment is not for bringing change in
(3) wp-342-2024.odt
pleading. It is simply for affixing additional name to that of petitioner
no.1.
5. In this backdrop, Trial Court was not justified in refusing
amendment referring to bar contemplated under Proviso to Order VI
Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. Even otherwise, change sought to
be introduced by way of application for amendment/correction, is
necessary to adjudicate dispute between parties. The Trial Court
adopted hyper-technical approach while rejecting petitioners’
application filed below Exhibit D-63. Hence, following order:
ORDER
a. Writ Petition is allowed.
b. The impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed by Civil Judge
Junior Division, Bicholim, Goa in Regular Civil Suit No.147/2014/B is
quashed and set aside.
c. The petitioners’ application Exhibit D-63 is allowed.
d. Amendment to be carried as per draft amendment specified in
paragraph no.5 of application.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/September-2026
Checking your session…