Bombay High Court
SHOBHA BABU CHAVAN SINCE DEC THR LRSversusPRAVINCHANDRA DAHYABHAI AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The amendment seeking restoration of possession is barred by limitation and the trial court’s order rejecting it stands.
Summary
The petitioners sought to amend their original suit (SC Suit No.1242 of 2011) to include a prayer for restoration of possession of the suit property, relying on Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The amendment was filed after a decree in a related suit (SC Suit No.1360 of 2011) had already granted an injunction and established that the petitioners had been in possession since 1982. The High Court held that the amendment was barred by limitation because there was no forcible dispossession within the six‑month period required for relief under Section 6, and the original suit did not contain a prayer for declaration of title. Consequently, the trial court’s order rejecting the amendment was deemed correct and the writ petition was dismissed. The court further noted that any fresh amendment application would be decided on its merits without prejudice to the earlier observations.
Issues considered
- Whether the proposed amendment seeking restoration of possession is barred by limitation under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
- Whether the decree in the earlier suit precludes amendment of the plaint for possession relief.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s. 6
Subjects
- amendment of plaint
- limitation
- Specific Relief Act
- possession
- injunction
- civil procedure
- writ petition
- restoration of possession
Judgment
Neeta Sawant 19-WP-6622-2022.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6622 OF 2022
Mrs. Shobha Babu Chavan
(since deceased through LRs) …..PETITIONERS
: VERSUS :
Pravinchandra Dahyabhai & Ors. ….RESPONDENTS
Mr. Jagdish S. Hegde, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Anjali N. Helekar with Mr. S.A. Abhyankar through V.C.) and Ms.
Anu C. Kaladharan, for the Respondent.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 20 FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1) The petition challenges order dated 4 March 2022 passed by the
Learned Judge City Civil Court rejecting Chamber Summons No.1379
of 2021 Aled by the Petitioner-PlaintiB seeking amendment of plaint.
2) I have heard Mr. Hegde, the learned counsel appearing the
Petitioners and Ms. Helekar, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.16.
3) It appears that Original PlaintiB and Respondent No.16 Aled
cross Suit against each other claiming possession in respect of the suit
property. Though both the suits proceeded together and would have
been ordinarily decided together, it appears that Original PlaintiB was
not diligent in prosecuting her suit on account of which the Suit Aled by
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 1 OF 3
20 FEBRUARY 2026
Neeta Sawant 19-WP-6622-2022.docx
Defendant No.16 came to be decided earlier and was decreed vide
judgment and order dated 7 March 2018. Defendant No.16 thus
succeeded in securing injunction against the PlaintiB in respect of the
suit property. The decree in S.C. Suit No. 1360 of 20111 has attained
Anality on account of order passed in First Appeal No. 321 of 2022 by
this Court on 9 January 2025.
4) PlaintiB’s S.C. Suit No. 1242 of 2011 is Aled with a prayer for
a negative declaration against the Defendants and for injunction. After
the decree of S.C. Suit No. 1360 of 2011 on 7 March 2018, PlaintiBs Aled
application for amendment of the plaint for seeking restoration of
possession of the suit premises. Perusal of the Schedule of amendment
would indicate that PlaintiBs have sought to add a prayer for restoration
of possession by relying on provisions of Section 6 of the SpeciAc
Reliefs Act, 1963. In my view, the proposed amendment is clearly
barred by limitation since in S.C. Suit No. 1360 of 2011, it is now well
settled that the PlaintiBs therein were in possession of the suit property
since 1982. Therefore, there is no question of forcible dispossession of
the PlaintiBs herein during 6 months of Aling of amendment
application.
5) Mr. Hegde attempts to salvage the situation by contending
that what is decreed in S.C. Suit No. 1360 of 2011 is mere injunction
based on factum of possession and the Petitioners are entitled to secure
possession of the suit property based on title. However, there is no
prayer in the Suit seeking declaration of title in respect of title of the suit
property in the name of the PlaintiBs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 2 OF 3
20 FEBRUARY 2026
Neeta Sawant 19-WP-6622-2022.docx
6) In my view therefore, no serious error can be traced in the
order of the Trial Court rejecting the application for amendment. The
Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.
7) At this stage, Mr. Hegde seeks leave to Ale another
application for amendment. Ms. Helekar, opposes the prayer. In my
view, if a fresh application for amendment is Aled, the same would be
decided on its merits without being inGuenced by the observations
made in the order.
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date: [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
2026.02.21
16:33:15
+0530
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NO. 3 OF 3
20 FEBRUARY 2026
Checking your session…