Bombay High Court
VIJAY NARAYANDAS RIZWANIversusROOPSINGH INDERSINGH AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The trial court's orders rejecting the correction of the title clause and the review petition are quashed, and the petitioner is allowed to correct the plaint's title clause.
Summary
The petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction and, during amendment to implead additional defendants, the names of previously impleaded defendants were inadvertently omitted from the plaint's title clause. The petitioner applied to correct the title clause, but the trial court rejected the application on the ground of lack of due diligence and belated filing. A review petition against that order was also dismissed. The High Court held that the omission was a mere clerical mistake, that the trial court failed to consider the prior order of impleadment, and that equity required allowing the correction and entertaining the review. Accordingly, the trial court's orders were set aside, the correction was permitted, and the writ petition was allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- The trial court's rejection of the application to correct the plaint's title clause on the basis of alleged lack of due diligence
- The propriety of dismissing a review petition when the underlying order involves an inadvertent clerical mistake
- Whether the omission of previously impleaded defendants' names during amendment warrants quashing of the trial court's orders
Subjects
- perpetual injunction
- amendment of plaint
- correction of title clause
- impleadment
- review petition
- civil procedure
- due diligence
- quash order
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37302
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
940 WRIT PETITION NO. 3792 OF 2019
Vijay Narayandas Rizwani
VERSUS
Roopsingh Indersingh And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Kasliwal Anil H.
Advocate for Respondents 2, 5, 6 : Mr. A. A. Mukhedkar
Advocate for Respondents No.3 and 4: Mr. M. D. Marwadkar
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
Dated : August 19, 2026
ORAL ORDER :
1. The present Petition takes exception to the orders dated 7th
December 2017 and 6th February 2019 passed below Exhibits 363 and
373, respectively, by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division,
in Regular Civil Suit No.199 of 1989.
2. The Petitioner had initially instituted a suit for perpetual
injunction against Respondent Nos.1 and 2, which came to be
registered as Regular Civil Suit No.199 of 1989. During the pendency of
the said suit, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed an application seeking their
impleadment as defendants. The said application came to be allowed.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner/Plaintiff that subsequently,
Defendant No.2 executed a gift deed in favour of his sons, who are
Respondent Nos.5 and 6. The Petitioner/Plaintiff, therefore, moved an
Page 1 of 5
940 WP 3792-2019
application seeking impleadment of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as
defendants in the said suit. The said application was allowed.
4. However, while carrying out the amendment, inadvertently,
the names of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 (Defendant Nos.3 and 4),
came to be deleted from the title clause of the plaint and the names
of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 came to be incorporated in their place.
Having realised the said mistake, the Petitioner/Plaintiff moved an
application below Exhibit 363 seeking permission to correct the title
clause of the plaint. The said application came to be rejected by
order dated 7th December 2017.
5. The Petitioner/Plaintiff thereafter preferred an application for
review of the said order below Exhibit 373. The said application also
came to be rejected by order dated 6th February 2019. The aforesaid
orders are subject matter of challenge in the present Petition.
6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 7th December 2017
would demonstrate that the learned Trial Court rejected the
application essentially on the ground that the Plaintiff had failed to
demonstrate due diligence and that the application was filed
Page 2 of 5
940 WP 3792-2019
belatedly, though the Plaintiff was aware of the mistake.
7. The application for review was also rejected for the aforesaid
reasons and additionally on the ground that there was no error
apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the earlier
order.
8. Having perused the impugned order dated 7th December
2017, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has
failed to take into consideration the material fact that Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 had already been ordered to be joined as Defendant
Nos.3 and 4 in the suit and that their names came to be
inadvertently deleted from the title clause while carrying out the
amendment pursuant to the subsequent order of impleadment of
Respondent Nos.5 and 6.
9. The mistake in question is, therefore, essentially a mistake in
carrying out the amendment to the title clause of the plaint. Such
mistake, particularly when the impleadment of Respondent Nos.3
and 4 as defendants was already ordered, ought not to have resulted
in their names being deleted from the proceedings.
Page 3 of 5
940 WP 3792-2019
10. In the facts of the present case, the learned Trial Court ought to
have permitted correction of the said inadvertent mistake. The
impugned order dated 7th December 2017, therefore, cannot be
sustained.
11. The application for review below Exhibit 373 was also rejected
on technical grounds. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial
Court ought to have allowed the application for review below Exhibit
373 in the interest of justice.
12. In view of the above, the following order is passed :
ORDER
(I) The orders dated 7th December 2017 and 6th
February 2019 passed below Exhibits 363 and 373,
respectively, by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior
Division, in Regular Civil Suit No.199 of 1989 are quashed
and set aside.
(ii) The application below Exhibit 363 in Regular Civil
Page 4 of 5
940 WP 3792-2019
Suit No.199 of 1989 is allowed.
(iii) The Petitioner/Plaintiff is permitted to correct the
title clause in the plaint in terms of the prayer made in
application below Exhibit 363.
(iv) The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and
disposed of.
( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )
vj gawade/-.
Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…