Bombay High Court

MARUTI DHONDIBA MORE SINCE DEC. THR. LEGAL HEIRSversusCHANDAR RAMCHANDRA PAWAR AND ORS.

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

An amendment to the plaint at the final stage of trial that would alter the nature of the proceedings and prejudice the respondents cannot be permitted.

Summary

The petitioners, original plaintiffs in a 2009 suit for declaration and injunction concerning a sale deed and land, sought to amend their plaint at the final hearing stage to add additional properties and prayers for partition and possession. They argued that the amendment was necessary to resolve the controversy and would not prejudice the respondents. The trial was already underway and the suit was awaiting adjudication when the amendment application (Exhibit‑183) was filed, which the trial court rejected. The High Court examined whether such a belated amendment, which would substantially change the nature of the proceedings, could be allowed under the Civil Procedure Code. Finding no satisfactory justification and noting the potential prejudice to the respondents, the Court upheld the trial court’s discretion to reject the amendment. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the rejection was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an amendment to the plaint may be permitted at the verge of final disposal of the suit.
Whether allowing such amendment would cause prejudice to the respondents.
Whether the trial court exercised its discretion correctly in rejecting the amendment application.

Subjects

Amendment of plaint
Civil Procedure Code
Writ Petition
Partition
Possession
Prejudice
Trial stage

Judgment

                         1                          81-WP-71-2026 (C)

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT
                      BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  WRIT PETITION NO. 71 OF 2026

Maruti Dhondiba More
Since Deceased through Legal Heirs                …...Petitioners
      Vs.
Chandar Ramchandra Pawar & Ors.                   …...Respondents

                                ...
Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad with Ms. Pratiksha Chaugule, Mr. Samrat
Haszare and Mr. Suraj Bhosale, Advocate for Petitioner.
                                ...


                  CORAM :      SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                    DATE :     5TH OCTOBER, 2026.

ORDER :


.     Heard Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad, learned advocate for Petitioners.


2.    The Petitioners are taking exception to the order dated

09.10.2023 passed below Exhibit-183 in R.C.S. No. 44 of 2009.


3.    Learned counsel for the Petitioners has vehemently canvassed

the submission that the proposed amendment is necessary for

deciding the controversy between the parties. It is necessary to avoid

complications and multiplicity of proceedings.


4.    It is further submitted that no prejudice would be caused if
                         2                           81-WP-71-2026 (C)

permission to amend is granted. The reasons for seeking the

amendment at the belated stage have also been disclosed in the

application.


5.    The Petitioners are the original plaintiffs who have filed R.C.S.

No. 44 of 2009 for declaration in respect of the sale deed dated

28.11.2021 and injunction. A separate declaration is also solicited in

respect of land Gut No. 33. The claim is contested by the

respondents by filing their written statement. The issues were

settled, and the parties have led evidence. When the matter was at

the stage of final hearing of the suit, Application Exhibit-183 was

submitted seeking amendment to the plaint. It was rejected by the

impugned order.


6.    The proposed amendment is in respect of the claim, suit

properties, pleadings, and prayers. Admittedly, the Application has

been preferred after commencement of the trial and at the verge of

final disposal of the suit. It cannot be overlooked that the suit of

2009 is still awaiting adjudication. No convincing reasons are quoted

in the Application to satisfy the test of due diligence. The entire

nature of the proceedings is going to change if such amendment is

allowed.
                           3                           81-WP-71-2026 (C)

7.       The Petitioners are soliciting the addition of the properties as

well as the addition of prayers. They are seeking the relief of

partition and possession. It is impermissible to entertain such type of

amendments just under the garb of the submission that, to decide

the controversy between the parties, the amendment is necessary. If

it is allowed, the prejudice to the respondents is writ large.


8.       I find that a reasonable view has been taken by the Court in

rejecting the Application. No interference is called for. The Writ

Petition is dismissed.



                                  [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


Suresh

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…