M/S. Finansys Wealth Advisors LLP and Anr. vs Jayshree Jagdish Thatte and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S. Finansys Wealth Advisors LLP and Anr. vs Jayshree Jagdish Thatte and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 5th April 2025 quashed and set aside; application for amendment in the plaint (Exhibit-29) restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge to be heard and decided afresh after an effective opportunity of hearing to the parties and recording adequate reasons, without notice to the respondents; petition thereafter stands disposed (paras 8-11).

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Civil Judge correctly recorded that the trial in the suit had not commenced, such that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 was not attracted to the amendment application. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order singularly lacks consideration of the aspects which ought to inform the exercise of discretion to permit a party to amend the pleadings; it merely records that the amendment is minor and would not change the nature of the suit.

Key takeaways

Since the impugned order is bereft of reasons, the Court did not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondent, and remitted the matter to the learned Civil Judge for fresh determination after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the parties and recording adequate reasons.ratio¶24
The impugned order stands quashed and set aside, the amendment application (Exhibit-29) stands restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge, and the Civil Judge is to hear and decide it afresh after providing an effective opportunity of hearing and recording adequate reasons.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 11443 of 2025, Bombay High Court (N.J. Jamadar, J.), decided 16th September 2025 - allowed. Challenge to a Civil Judge's order dated 5th April 2025 on an application for amendment in the plaint (Exhibit-29). The order had merely recorded that the proposed amendment was minor in nature, would not change the nature of the suit, and that the trial had not commenced (so the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 was treated as not attracted). Holding that the order singularly lacked consideration of the aspects relevant to permitting amendment and was bereft of reasons, the Court, without issuing notice to the respondents, quashed and set aside the impugned order, restored Exhibit-29 to the file of the learned Civil Judge, and directed a fresh decision after an effective opportunity of hearing to the parties with adequate reasons recorded. No monetary relief; no precedent cited or relied upon.

Varsha

18-wp-11443-2025-speaking.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 11443 OF 2025

M/s Finansys Wealth Advisors LLP … Petitioners and Anr.

V/s.

Jayshree jagdish Thatte and Ors. … Respondent

Mr. Chandan Athani i/by Sujit Padarat, for the petitioner.

CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 16^th SEPTEMBER 2025

PC:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD

Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date: 2025.09.20 10:36:47 +0530

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 5^th April 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge on an application for amendment in the plaint (Exhibit-29).

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Civil Judge has incorrectly recorded that the trial in the suit has not commenced, and, therefore, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 was not attracted.

The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order is bereft of reasons, though the plaintiff has sought substantial amendment in the plaint.

5. I have perused the impugned order.

This order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of the order dated 19^th September 2025.

1 of 2

18-wp-11443-2025-speaking.doc

Varsha

The learned Civil Judge has simply recorded that the proposed amendment is minor in nature and would not change the nature of the suit, apart from observing that the trial in the suit has not commenced.

The impugned order singularly lacks consideration on the aspects which ought to inform the exercise of discretion to permit a party to amend the pleadings. Since order is bereft of reasons, the Court does not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondent. It would be in the fitness of things to remit the matter back to the learned Civil Judge for a fresh determination after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the parties and recording adequate reasons.

Hence, the petition stands allowed.

The impugned order stands quashed and set aside.

The application for amendment in the plaint (Exhibit-29) stands restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge.

The learned Civil Judge is requested to hear and decide the said application (Exhibit-29) afresh after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the parties and recording adequate reasons.

The petition stands disposed.

(N.J. JAMADAR, J)

This order is corrected as per speaking to the minutes of the order dated 19^th September 2025.

2 of 2