Bombay High Court
BALASO DHONDIBA JANKARversusBHUPAL DHONDIBA JANKAR AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The amendment of the plaint was not permissible as it was filed after the trial commenced and was barred by the lapse of time, and the trial court's order rejecting the amendment was upheld.
Summary
The petitioner, Balaso Dhondiba Jankar, filed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order dated 10 June 2026 that rejected his application to amend the plaint in a partition suit (R.C.S. No.283 of 2006). The amendment sought to incorporate a challenge to a compromise decree passed in an earlier case (R.C.S. No.231 of 2004) which the respondents had already relied upon in their written statement. The petitioner argued that the amendment was necessary to resolve the real controversy, that the delay was minimal after receiving the certified copy of the decree, and that the decree could not bind him as he was not a party to the earlier suit. The court held that the amendment was filed after the trial had commenced, that the petitioner had ample opportunity to amend earlier, and that the lapse of time barred the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondents. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the trial court's order intact.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the limitation period for amendment of plaint after the commencement of trial
- Whether a compromise decree in a prior suit binds a non‑party in a subsequent suit
- The adequacy of the petitioner's explanation for delay in filing the amendment
- The discretion of the trial court to reject the amendment application
Subjects
- amendment of plaint
- delay
- compromise decree
- partition suit
- civil procedure
- writ petition
- limitation
- due diligence
Judgment
1 46-WP-4472-2026 (C)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4472 OF 2026
Balaso Dhondiba Jankar …...Petitioner
Vs.
Bhupal Dhondiba Jankar & Ors. …...Respondents
...
Mr. Sandeep Koregave, Advocate for Petitioner.
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.
ORDER :
. Heard Mr. Sandeep Koregave, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner.
2. The Petition is directed against the order dated 10.06.2026
passed below Exhibit-195 in R.C.S. No.283 of 2006, rejecting the
Application for amendment of the plaint.
3. The Petitioner has filed R.C.S. No.283 of 2006 for partition,
declaration and possession. The Respondent-Defendant filed the
written statement on 23.02.2027 and raised a specific plea that,
in view of the compromise decree passed in R.C.S. No.231 of
2004, the Petitioner is not entitled to claim partition. The matter
2 46-WP-4472-2026 (C)
proceeded further and the Petitioner-Plaintiff adduced evidence.
The Application at Exhibit-195 was submitted on 16.02.2026,
seeking incorporation of the pleading in the prayers in respect of
the challenge to the consent decree passed in R.C.S. No.231 of
2004. The same has been rejected by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that
the proposed amendment is necessary to decide the controversy
involved in the matter. Mere delay cannot be a ground to reject
the application seeking amendment to the plaint. It is further
submitted that it is explained in the Application that the certified
copy was received on 13.11.2025 and thereafter the Application
was promptly made. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is
not a party to R.C.S. No.231 of 2004 and the decree passed
therein cannot bind the Petitioner. No prejudice would be caused
to the Respondents if the Application is allowed by imposing
costs.
5. Admittedly, the Application at Exhibit-195 was submitted
after commencement of the trial. The Respondent-Defendants
disclosed the plea based on the decree passed in R.C.S. No.231 of
2004 way back when the written statement was filed on
3 46-WP-4472-2026 (C)
22.03.2007. Thereafter, a copy of the compromise decree was
produced at Exhibit-110 on 13.03.2019. In this backdrop, the
Application at Exhibit-195, submitted on 16.02.2026, is
absolutely not entertainable. The Petitioner had an occasion to
promptly amend the plaint previously, which he has not resorted
to.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the
judgment of Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr.1 My attention is
adverted to the principles culled out in paragraph No. 71. The
principle in paragraph No. 71.9 is pressed into service. It is
already observed that the Petitioner had an opportunity to seek
amendment. The suit is of the year 2006. Under these
circumstances, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
would not enure to its benefit. Further reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu
Builders & Developers Versus Narayanswamy & Sons &
Ors.2 to buttress that, if the amendment is necessary to decide
the real controversy, the same can be allowed.
1 (2022) 16 SCC 1
2 (2009) 10 SCC 84.
4 46-WP-4472-2026 (C)
7. The Petitioner proposes to incorporate the pleadings as
well as the prayers. The Petitioner has failed to satisfy the test of
due diligence. I do not find any perversity in the impugned order.
The learned Judge has considered all aspects of the matter and
arrived at a reasonable and plausible conclusion.
8. I am not inclined to accept the submission relying upon the
judgment. The right is accrued to the other side. The proposed
prayer is hopelessly barred by time, and the inordinate lapse on
the part of the Petitioner cannot be overlooked. I find no
substance in the Petition.
9. Writ Petition is dismissed.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
Suresh
Checking your session…