Smt. Shashikalabai Sakharam Khillare and Another vs Ramkorbai @ Ramkunwarbai W/O Sheshrao Rathod — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Shashikalabai Sakharam Khillare and Another vs Ramkorbai @ Ramkunwarbai W/O Sheshrao Rathod — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Time to amend the written statement in terms of operative clause (iv), as granted under the reviewed order, extended by 14 working days from the date of this order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants/respondents are entitled to review of this Court's order dated 24th February, 2025 in Writ Petition No.612/2025 permitting amendment of the plaint. +3 more

Ratio / Principle

Rearguing a matter already considered is not permissible in the review jurisdiction; by contending that the amendment was available to the petitioner right at inception, the applicants/respondents in a way intend to reargue the matter.

Key takeaways

The statement made by the non-applicant/petitioner on oath remained uncontroverted and the applicants/respondents failed to appear despite having been served with the notice; therefore they cannot reopen the issue in the review jurisdiction.ratio¶23
Since the review application is rejected, time to amend the written statement in terms of operative clause (iv) of the reviewed order, as granted, is extended by 14 working days from the date of this order.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review application rejected; time for consequential amendment to written statement extended - Misc. Civil Application No. 227 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 612 of 2025 (D) (neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:7810), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Anil L. Pansare, J., decided 8 August 2025. The applicants (respondents in the writ petition) sought review of the Court's order dated 24 February 2025 whereby the non-applicant/petitioner/original plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint on the plea that the amendment pertained to subsequent development and was covered by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; that order had gone unopposed as none appeared for the respondent (present applicants). Held: (i) contending that the amendment was available to the petitioner right at inception amounts to rearguing the matter, which is not permissible in the review jurisdiction; (ii) the petitioner's statement on oath regarding subsequent events remained uncontroverted and the applicants/respondents, though served with notice, failed to appear, and therefore cannot reopen the issue in the review jurisdiction; accordingly the application was rejected. However, since the applicants had not effected the consequential amendment directed by operative clause (iv) of the reviewed order (14 working days), the time to amend the written statement in terms of that clause was extended by 14 working days from the date of this order.

2025:BHC-NAG:7810

3.MCA.227.2025.odt 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (MCA) NO. 227 OF 2025 IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 612 OF 2025 (D)

Smt. Shashikalabai Sakharam Khillare & Anr.

Vs.

Ramkorbai alias Ramkunwarbai w/o. Sheshrao Rathod

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________

appearances, Court's orders of directions

Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. S.W. Sambre, Advocate with Mr. K.S. Agrawal, Advocate for the Applicants.

Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for the Non-applicant.

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J. DATE : 8 th AUGUST, 2025.

By the present application, the

applicants/respondents are seeking review of order dated 24^th February, 2025, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.612/2025.

By the said order, this Court was pleased to permit the non-applicant/petitioner/original plaintiff to amend the plaint on the ground that amendment pertains to subsequent development.

The non-applicant/petitioner putforth a case that the amendment to plaint was sought on the basis of subsequent development and therefore is covered by proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Since none appeared for the respondent (present applicant), this Court noted that the submission made by the non-applicant/petitioner was not opposed and accordingly the request to amend the plaint was allowed.

3.MCA.227.2025.odt 2/2

The learned counsel for the applicants/respondents submits that the so-called amendment was available to the non-applicant/petitioner right at inception. Thus the applicants/respondents, in a way, intend to reargue the matter, which, in my view, is not permissible in the review jurisdiction.

Here is a case where the statement made by the non-applicant/petitioner on oath remained uncontroverted. The details of subsequent events as alleged were noted. The applicants/respondents failed to appear despite having been served with the notice and therefore they cannot now reopen the issue in the review jurisdiction.

The application is accordingly rejected.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicants/respondents submits that the applicants/respondents may be allowed to amend the written statement to the extent of amendment, which is carried out in the plaint.

As such, by the order sought to be reviewed, the applicants/respondents were given opportunity to file consequential amendment within 14 working days. It appears that the applicants/respondents have not made consequential amendment as they have filed present application.

Since the application is now rejected, time to amend the written statement in terms of operative clause (iv), as granted, is extended by 14 working days from today.

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)

Vijaykumar

Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 11/08/2025 11:04:31