Bombay High Court

LALMANI BAPURAO DUBE SINCE DECEASED THRU LEGAL HEIRS AND ORSversusSURAJKALI SARJUPRASAD MITRA SINCE DECEASED THRU LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS

Decided: 31 July 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: N JAMADAR

Holding

The amendment of the plaint to correct the property description was justified and the writ petition was dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners challenged a Civil Judge's order allowing the amendment of a plaint to correct the description of the suit property, alleging that the plaintiffs had knowingly misrepresented the change in survey and Hissa numbers since 2010 and thus approached the court with unclean hands. The petition relied on the Supreme Court decision in Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society. The High Court noted that the suit was instituted in 1985, so the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, introduced by the 2002 amendment, did not apply. It held that the amendment was necessary to determine the real question in controversy and would not cause irretrievable prejudice to the petitioners. Consequently, the court found no justification to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it.

Issues considered

Whether an amendment to correct the description of the suit property can be allowed when the plaintiff is alleged to have made a misleading statement and approached the court with unclean hands.
Whether the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, as amended in 2002, applies to a suit instituted in 1985.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to supervisory relief to set aside the amendment order.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VI Rule 17
CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002

Subjects

Amendment of plaint
Description of suit property
Unclean hands
CPC Order VI Rule 17
Supervisory jurisdiction
Civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:31686

                                                                         16 wp 9408 of 2026.doc

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.9408 OF 2026

            Lalmani Bapurao Dube (deceased)
            through legal heirs Jayprasad Lalmani Dube
            and Ors.                                           ...   Petitioners
                  versus
            Surajkali Sarjuprasad Mitra (deceased)
            through legal heirs Avadnarayan Sarjuprasad
            Mitra and Ors.                                     …     Respondents

            Mr. P.B.Shah with Mr. Kayval P. Shah, for Petitioners.

                                CORAM:       N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :       31 JULY 2026

            ORDER :

            1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

            2.      The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 1 July 2026 passed

            by the learned Civil Judge, Vasai, in RCS No.136 of 1985, whereby the

            learned Civil Judge has allowed the application to amend the plaint so as to

            correct the description of the suit property.

            3.      Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the

            Plaintiffs were aware of the change in the survey number and particulars of

            the suit property since the year 2010. Yet, the Plaintiffs in the application

            made a mis-leading statement that, upon the perusal of the record of rights of

            the suit property, they have noticed that the survey number and Hissa number

            of the suit property have since been changed. It was submitted that the falsity


            SSP                                                                 1/3
                                                                16 wp 9408 of 2026.doc

of the said statement is demonstrable by reference to the documents of the

Plaintiffs themselves. Thus, the learned Civil Judge could not have allowed

the application for amendment as a party who approaches the Court with

unclean hands is not entitled to any relief. Mr. Shah placed reliance on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and

Ors. V/s. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and Ors.1.

4.       It is necessary to note that, the suit came to be instituted in the year

1985. The interdict contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908, introduced by the CPC Amendment Act, 2002, does

not apply to the said suit.

5.       It could not be controverted that the record of rights of the suit property

reflect the description which was sought to be introduced by way of

amendment. The proposed amendment is necessary for the determination of

the real question in controversy and also to obviate the complications that

may ensue at the stage of the execution of the decree, in the event the suit is

decreed.

6.       From this standpoint, the learned Civil Judge was fully justified in

allowing the application for amendment as there was no potentiality of

irretrievable prejudice to the Petitioners. Resultantly, this Court does not find

any justifiable reason to entertain the Petition in exercise of the supervisory


1    (2013) 11 SCC 531

SSP                                                                    2/3
                                                                                     16 wp 9408 of 2026.doc

                      jurisdiction.

                      7.       The Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed.




                                                                            ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                                   3/3



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/08/2026 15:40:39

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…