Bombay High Court
CHANDRAKALA HIRAMAN ALIAS BALU MOTKARI AND ANRversusSUDAM HIRAMAN ALIAS BALU MOTKARI AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The amendment was permissible and the petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners Chandrakala Hiraman alias Balu Motkari and another challenged an order of the Civil Judge, Nashik, which allowed amendment of the plaint to include joint family properties and to implead additional parties for a partition suit. The amendment was sought at the pre‑trial stage and the judge held that Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC did not bar it, noting that the amendment was necessary to resolve all issues and would not prejudice the petitioners. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, examined whether the amendment was legally permissible and whether any prejudice existed. It found that the amendment was essential for adjudicating the controversy and that no prejudice to the petitioners was shown. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the lower court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether an amendment of the plaint at the pre‑trial stage to include joint family properties and implead additional parties is permissible under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Whether such amendment would cause prejudice to the petitioners.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VI Rule 17
Subjects
- amendment of plaint
- Civil Procedure Code
- joint family property
- impleadment
- pre‑trial amendment
- supervisory jurisdiction
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
MEERA
MEERA MAHESH
MAHESH JADHAV 29-WP-4890-26.DOC
JADHAV Date:
2026.08.20
16:02:56
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4890 OF 2026
Chandrakala Hiraman Alias Balu Motkari And Anr ...Petitioners
Versus
Sudam Hiraman Alias Balu Motkari And Ors ...Respondents
----------
Mr. Shriram Kulkarni a/w Mr. Gaurav Ugale and Mr. Devesh B for
Petitioners.
-----------
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 18th AUGUST 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 6 th February
2026 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Nashik, whereby an application
for amendment of the plaint came to be allowed so as to incorporate the
properties which were stated to be joint family properties and implead
the parties who appeared to be necessary for adjudication of the suit for
partition.
3. The amendment was sought at the pre-trial stage. The interdict
contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, was not attracted. The learned Civil Judge has rightly
Meera Jadhav 1/2
29-WP-4890-26.DOC
recorded that the proposed amendment is necessary for the
determination of all the questions in controversy between the parties.
There is no potentiality of prejudice to the Petitioners.
4. Thus, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, this Court does
not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. The Petition
accordingly stands dismissed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
Meera Jadhav 2/2
Checking your session…