Sanjeev Kumar Anirudhan v. Manoj Kumar Anirudhan

Bombay HC2 Jul 2025RP/1/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Arif S. Doctor, J.; Review Petition No.1 of 2025; Interim Application (L) No.12722 of 2022; Suit No.330 of 2023; review/recall of order dated 28.03.2025; amendment of plaint; Schedule of Amendment; debentures brought on record post-disclosure order; misrecorded concession; no serious opposition; belated review petition; no prejudice by amendment per se; liberty to contest amended suit kept expressly open; review petition dismissed; Sanjeev Kumar Anirudhan; Manoj Kumar Anirudhan; Akshay Pai Sr.Adv.; E A. Sasi.

What did the court decide?

None to the review petitioner beyond express preservation: all rights and contentions of the review petitioner to deal with the amendments already carried out are kept expressly open. ¶46-47

Sanjeev Kumar Anirudhan vs Manoj Kumar Anirudhan — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the review petitioner beyond express preservation: all rights and contentions of the review petitioner to deal with the amendments already carried out are kept expressly open.

¶46-47

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 28.03.2025 permitting amendment of the plaint ought to be reviewed/recalled on the ground that the concession of 'no serious opposition to the interim application being allowed' was incorrectly recorded against senior counsel for the review petitioner. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The review petition is entirely misconceived.

¶44-45

Ratio / Principle

The review petitioner is always at liberty to deal with the contents of the amended suit.

¶45

Key takeaways

No prejudice whatsoever can be said to be caused to the review petitioner by the amendment being allowed per se.ratio¶45-46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (O.O.C.J.), Arif S. Doctor, J. — Review Petition No.1 of 2025 in Interim Application (L) No.12722 of 2022 in Suit No.330 of 2023 sought review/recall of the order dated 28 March 2025, which had allowed the applicant/plaintiff to amend the plaint (to bring on record certain debentures learnt of after a disclosure order) upon the recorded concession of Mr. Pai, Learned Senior Counsel, that there was 'no serious opposition' to the IA being allowed. The review petitioner contended the concession was misrecorded — what was conceded was only substitution of the schedule of amendment, not absence of opposition, and that Defendants Nos.1 to 4 had a serious objection. The applicant's counsel countered that the amendments stood carried out, the review petition was belated, and no prejudice would ensue. HELD: the review petition is entirely misconceived and is dismissed; the review petitioner is always at liberty to deal with the contents of the amended suit, and no prejudice whatsoever is caused by the allowance of the amendment per se. All rights and contentions of the review petitioner to deal with the carried-out amendments are kept expressly open.

¶1

1 1- RP-1-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

REVIEW PETITION NO.1 OF 2025

¶4

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.12722 OF 2022

¶6

¶7

SUIT NO.330 OF 2023

¶8

Sanjeev Kumar Anirudhan … Petitioner Versus Manoj Kumar Anirudhan and Ors. …Respondents

¶9

Mr. Akshay Pai, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rahul Singh a/w Ms. Pranali Raut, Ms. Varsha Sawant, Ms. Siddhi Bhosale i/by Legal Catalyst for the Petitioner. Adv. E A. Sasi a/w Adv. Bijoy Chacko for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

¶11

DATE : 7th AUGUST 2025

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The captioned Review Petition seeks review/recall of the order dated 28 th

¶14

March, 2025 passed by this Court in Interim Application (L) No.12722 of 2022.

¶15

The order dated 28th March 2025 reads thus:

¶16

"1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Applicant at the outset seeks to replace the schedule of amendment. There is no opposition to this request. The same is permitted to do so.

¶18

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2025.08.14 18:53:57 +0530

Sajakali Jamadar

1 of 3

2 1- RP-1-2025.doc

Mr. Pai, Learned Senior Counsel very fairly submitted that there is no serious opposition to this Interim Application being allowed.

¶23

Given that the amendment sought is only to bring on record certain debentures which came to the knowledge of the Applicant after the disclosure order passed by this Court, the Interim Applicant is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:-

¶24

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to permit the Applicant/Plaintiff to amend the plaint as per the Schedule of Amendment annexed hereto.”

¶25

Amendments to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today.

¶26

Interim Application (L) No. 12722 of 2022 is accordingly disposed of."

¶27

It is the submission of Mr. Pai that in Paragraph -3 as extracted above

¶28

that the concession made by Mr. Pai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on

¶29

that date has been incorrectly recorded. Mr. Pai submits that what had been

¶30

conceded to was the schedule to the interim application being changed and not

¶31

that the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 did not have a serious opposition to the interim

¶32

application being allowed. He submits that the Defendants have a serious

¶33

objection to the interim application being allowed and thus the order needs to

¶34

be reviewed.

¶35

Mr. Sasi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant in the

¶36

interim application disputed the contentions of Mr.Pai. He submitted that the

Sajakali Jamadar

2 of 3

3 1- RP-1-2025.doc

order correctly recorded that Mr. Pai did not have any objection to the interim

¶41

application being allowed. In any event he pointed out that the amendments

¶42

have already been carried out and the review petition had been belatedly filed. He additionally pointed out that no prejudice would be caused to the review petitioner since the review petitioner would have every opportunity to deal with the merits of the amended suit. Mr. Pai pointed out that the order did not specifically reserved such liberty. He submitted that if such liberty was granted,

¶43

the review Petitioner would not have any grievance.

¶44

In light of the above, I find this review petition to be entirely

¶45

misconceived. The review petitioner is always at liberty to deal with the contents of the amended suit. No prejudice whatsoever can be said to be caused

¶46

to the review petitioner by the amendment being allowed per se. Hence, the

¶47

review petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶48