Bombay High Court

LAXMAN VYANKATNARSU SINGAM AND ORS.versusANURADHA KRUSHNA MHANTA AND ORS. 17

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The petitioners had satisfied the test of due diligence and were entitled to amendment of their written statement and production of the registered documents, leading to modification of the trial court’s orders.

Summary

The petitioners, who were later impleaded as defendants in a partition suit, filed applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment to their written statement and production of three old registered documents. The trial court rejected these applications, citing lack of due diligence and procedural delay. The petitioners argued that the newly discovered instruments were material and that a liberal approach to amendment of written statements should apply. The High Court held that the petitioners had satisfied the test of due diligence, that amendment of a written statement is not barred by the same strict rules as amendment of a plaint, and that the old registered documents should be admitted for evidence. Consequently, the court quashed the trial court’s order rejecting the amendment, allowed the amendment, modified the order on document production, and imposed a modest cost on the petitioners.

Issues considered

The applicability of the test of due diligence for amendment of a written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Whether a belated amendment to the written statement can be permitted despite alleged prejudice.
Whether old registered instruments can be produced and admitted as evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioners' applications on technical grounds.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 6 Rule 17

Subjects

amendment of written statement
due diligence
Civil Procedure Code
production of documents
partition suit
cost award
registered instruments

Judgment

38-WP-3858-2026=.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3858 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by Laxman Vyankatnarsu Singam and Ors. … Petitioners
UDAY
UDAY SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP Vs.
JAGTAP Date:
2026.08.24
19:16:56
+0530 Anuradha Krushna Mhanta and Ors. … Respondents
………….
Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni i/b Nakul Vivek Shukla for the Petitioners
Mr. Shrikanth Kompelli a/w Amol A. Kanaki for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
………….
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026.
FINAL ORDER :

. Heard Mr. Kulkarni for the petitioner and Mr. Kompelli for

respondent nos. 1 to 3.

2. The respondent nos.1 to 3 who are the original plaintiffs are the

contesting parties and others are co-defendants and formal parties.

3. A comprehensive petition has been filed challenging order dated

03.07.2026 passed below Exh.225 and the common order dated

08.07.2026 passed below Exh.225 and Exh.230 by the trial Court in

Special Civil Suit No. 218 of 2016.

4. The petitioners are the defendant nos.4 to 6 who are the

purchasers of the suit land from defendant no.1 i.e. respondent no.4.

Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 9
38-WP-3858-2026=.doc

The respondent nos. 1 to 3 are the original plaintiffs who have filed suit

for partition, possession and declaration. The petitioners were

subsequently impleaded as defendants vide order dated 06.03.2020

passed below Exh.24. The matter was at the stage of argument when

Applications Exh. 223, 225 and 230 were filed by the petitioners. All the

applications are rejected by the impugned orders.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the test of due

diligence is satisfied by specific pleadings in Application Exh.223. Three

registered instruments were discovered on 29.06.2026. It is submitted

that the petitioners were subsequently added and thereafter the

respondents plaintiffs filed additional affidavit in lieu of examination-in-

chief. The application Exh.223 seeking amendment to written statement

has been filed within short time thereafter. It is submitted that nature of

the proceeding is not changing and the proposed amendment as well as

production of the documents are necessary to decide the real controversy

between the parties. It is submitted that trial Court committed error of

jurisdiction and adopted hyper technical approach in rejecting the

applications of the petitioners.

6. Per contra, learn counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 would

submit that petitioners are protracting the proceedings and with mala

Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 9
38-WP-3858-2026=.doc

fide intention, filed applications seeking amendment to written statement

or production of the documents belatedly. The test of due diligence has

not been satisfied and the trial Court is justified in rejecting the

applications. It is submitted that the proposed amendment refers to the

property described in paragraph no.1A of the plaint which is, in fact,

house property and the confusion is deliberately made to cause prejudice

to the respondents. It is further submitted that after commencement of

the trial it is not permissible to seek amendment to the pleadings.

7. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. Special Civil

Suit No. 218 of 2016 is filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 for partition,

possession and declaration of Sale Deed executed in favour of the

petitioners on 02.12.2014 in respect of suit land, which is described in

paragraph no.1B of the plaint. The petitioners were not party to the

litigation initially but they were impleaded vide order dated 06.03.2020

passed below Exh.24. Thereafter, they filed written statement on

06.03.2023 contesting the suit and raising the plea that they are the bona

fide purchasers for value without notice.

8. The special feature of the matter is that after filing of the written

statement by the petitioners, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed additional

affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 15.11.2025. The evidence

Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 9
38-WP-3858-2026=.doc

was led thereafter. The petitioner also filed affidavit in lieu of

examination in chief on 23.06.2026. On 30.06.2026, Application

Exh.223 was filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for

amendment to written statement, within seven months. The issues were

settled long back but there are subsequent development which is narrated

hereinabove.

9. It is specifically averred in Application Exh.223 that three

registered instruments were secured on 29.06.2026. There is no reason

to discard this factual aspect of the matter. On the strength of those

documents, the proposed amendment is solicited for incorporating

paragraph no.8A to the written statement. The proposed amendment,

paragraph 8A spells out a plea that the suit land is the self-acquired

property of the vendor of the petitioners i.e. respondent no.4 – Sudarshan

Mhanta. The plea raised goes to the root of the matter and needs

objective scrutiny despite of the fact it is being raised belatedly.

10. Another interesting facet of the matter is that following three

registered instruments are sought to be produced which are more than 30

years old.

(i) Sale Deed dated 16.12.1946.
(ii) Partition dated 11.02.1957.
(iii) Partition dated 22.03.1993.

Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 9
38-WP-3858-2026=.doc

11. There is no reason to infer that these are got up documents. Being

registered instruments and more than 30 years old, they carry some

probative value. These instruments cannot be kept away from the

objective scrutiny.

12. I find that nature of the proceedings are not going to change. The

proposed amendment as well as production of the registered instruments

are necessary to decide real controversy between the parties. The delay

in seeking amendment which has caused some prejudice to the

respondents – plaintiffs can be equated by imposing cost.

13. The trial Court committed error of jurisdiction in over emphasizing

the test of due diligence. In my considered view, the petitioners have

satisfied the said test. It is over looked that a consistent view has been

taken by the Supreme Court to adopt liberal approach in granting

amendment to the written statement as compared to amendment to the

plaint.

14. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the

decision of the Supreme Court in Usha Balasaheb Swami & Ors. vs. Kiran

Appaso Swami & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 602. Paragraph 19 is the relevant,

which reads as under :-

Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 9
38-WP-3858-2026=.doc

“19. It is equally well-settled principle that a prayer for
amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the
written statement stand on different footings. The general
principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as
to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of
claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in
the principles relating to amendment of the written statement.
Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting
or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written
statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or
substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be
objectionable.”

15. It is further reiterated by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance

Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2022) SCC

Online SC 1128 and especially paragraph no.24 of the judgment. I

propose to follow the above judgment in allowing Application Exh.223.

16. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the

following judgments : -

(i) Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr. vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N.
& Ors. AIR 2007 SC 806.
(ii) Ganpat Bhagoji Kshirsagar & Ors. vs. Anjana Krushna Jamdade &
Anr. (Writ Petition No.10831 of 2023, decided on 09.10.2024).
(iii) J. Samuel and Ors. vs. Gattu Mahesh & Ors. (2012) AIR SCW
1035.
(iv) Sugandhi (dead) by LRs. & Anr. vs. P. Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC706.

(v) Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal & Ors. AIR (2009) SC 1103.
(vi) M/s. Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. M/s. Narayanaswamy
and Sons and Ors. AIR (2009) SC (supp) 2897.

Uday S. Jagtap 6 of 9
38-WP-3858-2026=.doc

17. The facts are distinguishable. Those would not enure to the

benefit of the parties. In M/s. Revajeetu Builders and Developers

(Supra), the parameters to be kept in mind while considering

amendment to pleading are laid down by the Supreme Court which are

binding upon this Court.

18. The petitioners submitted Application Exh.225 for production of

documents and produced three instruments referred above. The

production was allowed. Further Application Exh.230 was filed for

admitting those documents in evidence. By common impugned order

both the applications were rejected.

19. It is submitted by the respondents that production of the

documents is one thing and reading of those documents in evidence is

another thing. It is submitted that impugned common order is legal and

proper.

20. I have already observed that the instruments which are produced

on record are registered and old documents. The production of

documents is already allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents is

right in contending that mere production would not dispense with the

obligation to prove the documents. It would be open for the petitioners

to take appropriate steps for proving the documents. The admissibility of

Uday S. Jagtap 7 of 9
38-WP-3858-2026=.doc

the documents and the probative value can be decided during the course

of trial. The common order dated 08.07.2026 needs to be appropriately

modified. The lapses on the part of the petitioners cannot be ruled out.

The evidence adduced needs to be re-visited by the parties. The

prejudice caused to the respondent nos.1 and 3 needs to be compensated.

The petitioners shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent nos. 1 to

3. I therefore, pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed partly.

(ii) The order dated 03.07.2026 passed below Exh.223 stands quashed

and Application Exh.223 shall stand allowed.

(iii) The common order dated 08.07.2026 stands modified by

permitting the production of documents with liberty to the petitioners to

take steps for proving the documents in accordance with law.

(iv) The petitioners shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent nos.

1 to 3 within a period of three weeks either by directly depositing in

account and producing receipt thereof or depositing in the trial Court. In

case, the amount is deposited the same shall be disbursed to the

respondent nos.1 to 3.

Uday S. Jagtap 8 of 9
38-WP-3858-2026=.doc

(v) The respondents shall be at liberty to seek amendment to the

plaint or seek adducing of the evidence, if required.

(vi) The petitioners shall cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the

matter and any further lapse on their part would be taken seriously.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )

Uday S. Jagtap 9 of 9

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…