Bombay High Court
THE CHIEF OFFICER MUNCIPAL COUNCIL DHARASHIVversusPRASAD RANGNATH PATIL
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
Amendment of the written statement after evidence has begun, without sufficient justification, is not permissible and the trial court’s rejection stands.
Summary
The Chief Officer of the Municipal Council of Dharashiv filed a writ petition challenging the Civil Judge’s order rejecting the defendant’s application to amend his written statement in suit RCS No. 161/2023. The suit sought a declaration that a notice issued by the Municipal Council was void and an injunction against the defendant. After the evidence stage had commenced, the defendant sought to amend his written statement to include facts already within his knowledge, without explaining the delay. The trial court held that the amendment was filed to prolong the proceedings and rightly rejected it. The High Court affirmed that there was no justification for allowing the amendment and that the trial court’s order should stand. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an amendment to a written statement filed after the commencement of evidence is permissible under civil procedure.
- Whether allowing such an amendment would unjustifiably delay the trial.
Subjects
- amendment of pleadings
- written statement
- civil procedure
- delay
- injunction
- municipal council
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:18986
952-wp-4682-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4682 OF 2026
The Chief Officer Municipal Council Dharashiv
VERSUS
Prasad Rangnath Patil
...
Mr. V. B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner
***
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J
DATE : APRIL 28, 2026
PC :
1. The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated 16.03.2026
passed below Exhibit 95 in RCS No. 161/2023 by learned Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Dharashiv whereby Petitioner’s application seeking amendment in written
statement has been rejected.
2. The Petitioner is Defendant in RCS No. 161/2023. The suit is
instituted for declaration that impugned notice issued by Respondent – Municipal
Council is null and void and relief of perpetual injunction restraining
Petitioner/Defendant from causing obstruction to construction work of Plaintiff
over suit property is sought. The record indicates that on 29.07.2025, suit was
posted for evidence of Plaintiff. Thereafter, Petitioner failed to lead evidence, hence,
evidence close order was passed on 27.07.2025. The matter was then posted for final
argument. At this stage, application was filed by Petitioner seeking permission to file
written statement, which was allowed.
PAGE 1 OF 2
952-wp-4682-2026.odt
3. At this stage, without proceeding to cross-examine Plaintiff’s witness,
Petitioner filed application seeking permission to amend written statement. Perusal
of proposed amendment shows that all facts which were within knowledge of
Petitioner at time of filing of written statement are sought to be incorporated by way
of amendment. There is no explanation as to why aforesaid aspects were not pleaded
in written statement, which was filed after commencement of evidence in suit. The
Trial Court has rightly observed that application is filed only with intention to
prolong proceeding in suit, which is expedited by order of this Court.
4. In that view of matter, this Court finds no reason to entertain Writ
Petition. In result, Writ Petition stands rejected.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 2 OF 2
Checking your session…