Bombay High Court

SARVAPRIYA LEASING PRIVATE LIMITEDversusMUMBAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD. AND ORS

Decided: 27 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: N JAMADAR

Holding

The impugned order will not preclude consideration of the application for amendment on its merits.

Summary

Sarvapriya Leasing Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging an order that seemingly barred further proceedings. The petitioner sought to amend the plaint to implead additional parties and raise new grounds of challenge against subsequent transactions. The Court initially expressed reluctance to entertain the petition, but the petitioner argued that the amendment application should not be impeded by the earlier order. The Court clarified that the impugned order does not preclude the consideration of the amendment application on its merits. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed with this clarification.

Issues considered

Does the earlier impugned order bar the petitioner from filing an application for amendment of the plaint?

Subjects

amendment of plaint
impleadment
writ petition
civil procedure
High Court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:31345

                                                                          21 wp 5642 of 2026.doc

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   WRIT PETITION NO.5642 OF 2026

            Sarvapriya Leasing Pvt. Ltd.                    ... Petitioner
                 versus
            Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Ors. … Respondents

            Mr. Shanay Shah with Mr. Darshan Mehta, Mr. Aaditya Mapara i/by Dhruve
            Liladhar and Co., for Petitioner.
            Mr. Omar Khaiyam Shaikh with Mr. Sahil Salvi, Mr. Shahzad Ansari, Mr.
            Zimam Khan i/by Mr. Vikas Salvi and Associates, for Respondent No.1.
            Mr. Parth Choudhary i/by Mr. Nishant Vyas, for Respondent No.2.
            Mr. Ankur Shah with Mr. Akshay Udeshi, for Respondent Nos.3 to 5.

                                CORAM:       N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :       27 JULY 2026


            P.C.

            1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

            2.      When the Court expressed its disinclination to entertain the Petition, Mr.

            Shah the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submits that the

            Petitioner has filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint so as to

            seek impleadment of the parties and raise additional grounds of challenge

            and even assail the subsequent transactions. Learned Counsel submits that

            the impugned order may not be considered as an impediment in prosecuting

            the said application for amendment.

            3.      The Writ Petition stands disposed with a clarification that the impugned



            SSP                                                                  1/2
                                                                                 21 wp 5642 of 2026.doc

                      order will not preclude consideration of the application for amendment, on its

                      own merits and in accordance with law.

                                                                       ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                               2/2



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 31/07/2026 10:54:01

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…