DNYANDEV BALU KHIDBIDE AND JORSversusYASHWANT BALKRUSHNA JADAV AND ORS

2026:BHC-AS:3879

                                                                          10 wp 808 of 2026.doc

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  WRIT PETITION NO.808 OF 2026

            Dnyandev Balu Khidbide and Ors.                   ...   Petitioners
                 versus
            Yashwant Balkrushna Jadhav and Ors.               …     Respondents

            Mr. Vivek V. Salunke with Ms. Manthan A. Chaudhari, for Petitioners.
            Mr. Prashant R. Suryawanshi i/by Mr. G.M.Savagave, for Respondent No.1.

                                CORAM:       N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :       23 JANUARY 2026

            ORAL ORDER :

            1.     Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the

            learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

            2.     The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 10 October 2025

            passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mangaon, whereby the application

            preferred by the Petitioners – Plaintiffs to correct the description of the suit

            property came to be rejected, principally on the ground that the amendment

            was sought at a belated stage when the suit came to be posted for final

            arguments, and, thus, the interdict contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule

            17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came into play and the Plaintiffs

            failed to satisfy the test of due diligence.

            3.     Mr. Salunke, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that, by the

            proposed amendment, neither the nature and character of the suit, nor that of



            SSP                                                                 1/5
                                                                10 wp 808 of 2026.doc

the suit property would change.         The Petitioner intended to carry out

amendment so as to make the record correct.            It was submitted that, no

prejudice would be caused to the Defendants as the identity of the suit

property does not change. In this view of the matter, the learned Civil Judge

took a very rigid and hyper-technical view of the matter, submitted Mr.

Salunke.

4.    In opposition to this, Mr. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel for the

Respondents/Defendants, supported the impugned order. It was submitted

that the learned Civil Judge has recorded categorical findings that the

Plaintiffs were aware of the change in the Gat number and Survey No., even

prior to the institution of the suit and, thus, there was no reason for the

Plaintiffs not to seek amendment before the commencement of the trial.

Since the Plaintiffs did not offer any satisfactory explanation to satisfy the test

of due diligence, the learned Civil Judge was justified in rejecting the

application for amendment, submitted Mr. Suryawanshi.

5.    In the plaint, the suit property was described as under :

 Old Survey No.       Gat No.           Area        Assessment          Type
   29/1 C 2+4         242/1/1          0-62-0          8-35             Rice


6.    By the proposed amendment, the Petitioners – Plaintiffs sought to

furnish the following description of the suit property :



SSP                                                                   2/5
                                                                   10 wp 808 of 2026.doc

   Old       New           Old Gat      New Gat      Area       Assessme       Type
 Survey     Survey           No.          No.                      nt
   No.        No.
29/1/C/2/4 29/1/ and         242/A       241/1    1.03.00 out    13.05         Rice
            29/2/A           242/B                of 0.62.00


7.       Evidently, the old survey number and the area of the suit property

remain unaltered. What the Plaintiffs proposed to amend was, the new Gat

number and the assessment of the suit property and the manner which the

record of rights came to be corrected.        The proposed amendment does not

change the nature and the character of the suit property. Nor the identity of

the suit property is sought to be altered.

8.       The correction of an inadvertent or clerical error in the description of the

suit property, which neither changes the nature and character of the suit, nor

that of the suit property or otherwise causes prejudice to the Defendants,

cannot be said to be impermissible if an application is filed after the

commencement of the trial.           In these circumstances, the principles which

govern the amendment after the commencement of trial, in view of the proviso

to Order VI Rule 17, could not have been readily imported.

9.       A useful reference in this Context can be made to a judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Varun Pahwa V/s. Renu Chaudhary1, wherein

the Supreme Court enunciated that the inadvertent mistake cannot be refused

to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint.

1    (2019) 15 SCC 628

SSP                                                                      3/5
                                                                 10 wp 808 of 2026.doc

The rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the

substantive rights of the parties. It is well settled that amendment in the

pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence,

inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always

gives leave to amend the pleadings even if a party is negligent or careless as

the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends

of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.

10.    A profitable reference can also be made to the decision of the Supreme

Court in the case of Usha Devi V/s. Rijwan Ahmad2 wherein in a somewhat

similar fact-situation, correction in the description of the suit property was

allowed to be carried out by way of amendment.

11.    At this stage, it must be recorded that, learned Counsel for the

Petitioners – Plaintiffs, on instructions, submits that the Petitioners – Plaintiffs

would not adduce any evidence in the event the amendment is allowed, and

would proceed with the final hearing of the suit. Nonetheless, the elements of

delay and inconvenience to the Defendant No.1 can be taken care of by

awarding costs. I am, therefore, inclined to allow the Petition.

12.    Hence, the following order :

                                         ORDER

       (i)     The Writ Petition stands allowed.


2   AIR 2008 SC 1147

SSP                                                                    4/5
                                                                                        10 wp 808 of 2026.doc

                               (ii)    The impugned order stands quashed and set aside.

                               (iii)   The application (Exh.139) stands allowed and the Petitioners are

                      permitted to carry out amendment in accordance with the proposed

                      amendment as indicated in the application (Exh.139 – Exh. D to the Petition),

                      within a period of one week from the date of uploading of this order, subject

                      to the following conditions :

                                       (a)   The Petitioners shall not be entitled to adduce evidence

                      post amendment.

                                       (b)   The Petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the

                      Defendants No.1, which shall be deposited in the trial Court, within a period of

                      one week from the date of uploading of this order.

                                       (c)   The Petitioners – Plaintiffs shall not seek any adjournment

                      for final hearing of the suit.

                                       (d)   Defendant No.1 is at liberty to file additional written

                      statement, if any, within a period of one week of the service of the amended

                      copy of the plaint.

                               (iv)    Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.




                                                                            ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                                     5/5



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/01/2026 20:39:24