Bombay High Court
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTDversusCAMBATA TRUST AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The amendment does not change the nature of the suit and there is no ground for interference with the lower court’s order.
Summary
The petitioner, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., challenged a Small Causes Court order that permitted amendment of the plaint to include a claim for Rs.1.50 crore spent on repairs and refurbishment of the suit premises. The High Court observed that the trial court had only allowed the amendment and had not yet determined whether any damage occurred or whether the plaintiff was entitled to the claimed amount, which would be decided at trial. The amendment merely added a prayer for recovery of repair costs and did not alter the nature of the suit, which already sought mesne profits after possession was recovered. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the lower court’s order. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Small Causes Court erred in allowing amendment of the plaint to include a claim for repair costs.
- Whether such amendment changes the nature of the suit warranting interference by a higher court.
Subjects
- amendment of plaint
- civil procedure
- costs of repair
- mesne profits
- writ petition
- Small Causes Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:17397
Megha 14_wp_4240_2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4240 OF 2026
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner
V/s.
Cambata Trust and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. K.N. Kandekar for the Petitioner.
Ms. Rhia Mehta and Ms. Janani Sivaraman i/b. M/s. RHP Partners for the
Respondents.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 10 APRIL 2026.
P.C.:
1) Petition challenges order dated 23 February 2026 passed by
the Small Causes Court, allowing application at Exhibit-48 for
amendment of the Plaint and permitting the Plaintiff to amend the
Plaint so as to incorporate a prayer for recovery of costs incurred for
carrying out repairs in the suit premises.
2) Petition is thoroughly misconceived and proceeds on a
footing as if the the Trial Court has concluded that a damage is caused to
the suit premises and that the Plaintiff has actually incurred amount of
Rs.1.50 crores towards repairs and refurbishment. As of now, what is
done by the Trial Court is only to permit inception of amended prayer in
Page No.1 of 2
10 April 2026
Megha 14_wp_4240_2026
the Plaint. Whether damage is actually caused or not and whether the
Plaintiff is entitled to recover the demanded amount are issues still at
large, which would be decided on completion of trial of the Suit. The
amendment otherwise does not change nature of Suit. Having recovered
possession, Plaintiff is now seeking to recover mesne pro?ts from the
Defendant. Amendment only incorporates prayer for recovery of alleged
amount spent by the Plaintiff in repairing and refurbishing the premises.
In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted in the impugned
order.
3) Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 10 April 2026
Date: 10/04/2026 20:28:47
Checking your session…