Dismissed¶29

Smt Archana Sadashiv Avtade and Ors. v. Aniket Bapu Bhosale and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jan 2025WP/13375/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Writ Petition No. 13375 of 2024, Gauri Godse J., 1 July 2025: defendants' Article 227 petition against interlocutory order permitting amendment of plaint at pre-trial stage dismissed; no interference with interlocutory orders; Section 105 CPC liberty preserved; additional written statement allowed within six weeks; Section 14 Limitation Act issue to be framed; all merits contentions open at final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed, subject to the observations that the impugned order's observations were for the limited purpose of deciding the amendment application, with liberty under Section 105 of the CPC kept open to challenge the impugned order after the final decree, and permission to the petitioners to file an additional written statement within six weeks. ¶29

Smt Archana Sadashiv Avtade and Ors. vs Aniket Bapu… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with a purely interlocutory order allowing amendment of the plaint at a pre-trial stage.

¶21

Court's answer

Normally, the Court should be slow in interfering with a purely interlocutory order in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; hence this was not a case to interfere with the impugned order allowing amendment of the plaint.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

If the final decree in the suit is against the petitioners, it will always be open to them to challenge the impugned order in view of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; accordingly, interference at this stage was unwarranted.

¶25

Key takeaways

The petitioners (defendants) are permitted to file their additional written statement within six weeks, wherein they may raise all possible contentions permissible in law.ratio¶26
The observations made in the impugned order were made only for the limited purpose of deciding the application for amendment of the plaint, and all contentions on merits remain open at the final hearing of the suit.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interlocutory order allowing amendment of plaint at pre-trial stage — Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by defendants — Held, the Court should normally be slow in interfering with purely interlocutory orders in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 — In view of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioners may challenge the impugned order if the final decree goes against them — Petitioners permitted to file additional written statement within six weeks — Observations in the impugned order confined to the limited purpose of deciding the amendment application; all contentions on merits left open for final hearing — Petition dismissed, keeping liberty under Section 105 CPC open.

¶1

23.13375.24 wp.docx

¶2

Iresh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 13375 OF 2024

¶6

Smt Archana Sadashiv Avtade and ors

¶7

.....Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Aniket Bapu Bhosale and anr

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

Mr. R. D. Phade for the petitioners

¶12

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶13

DATE : 1^st JULY 2025

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

IRESH MASHAL

¶16

Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2025.07.02 15:04:59 +0530

¶17

This petition is filed by the defendants to challenge the order

¶18

allowing the application to amend the plaint.

¶19

There is no dispute that the application is filed at a pre-trial

¶20

stage. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has recorded that the defendants are at liberty to submit a consequential written statement and the issue of Section 14 of the Limitation Act will be framed.

¶21

This is purely an interlocutory order. Normally, Court should

¶22

be slow in interfering with such interlocutory order, in its

¶23

1/2

¶24

23.13375.24 wp.docx

¶25

discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the event the final decree is against the petitioners, it would always be open for them to challenge the impugned order, in view of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶26

The petitioners can always raise all possible contentions as permissible in law, by filing additional written statement. The petitioners are therefore permitted to file their additional written statement within six weeks from today.

¶27

Hence, this is not a case to interfere with the impugned order in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore, clarified that the observations made in the impugned order have been made for a limited purpose of deciding the application for amendment of the plaint. All contentions on merits will remain open at the time of final hearing of the suit.

¶28

Subject to the aforesaid observations and keeping the

¶29

liberty under Section 105 of the CPC open, the petition is dismissed.

¶30

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶31

2/2

Smt Archana Sadashiv Avtade and Ors. v. Aniket Bapu Bhosale and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Archana Sadashiv Avtade and Ors. v. Aniket Bapu Bhosale and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak Ramanlal Shah and Anr. vs Sunil Kantilal Shah and Ors.

Nilesh Atmaram Paikekary and Anr. vs Kera Keshav Paikekary and Ors.

Nisha Narayan Phadake vs Narayan Janaba Phadake

Shahaji Nanai Thorat Alias Shahajirao Dhondiba Thorat vs the State of Maharashtra

Shobha Vasant Bhoir Thr. Poa, Satpal Singh Jaimalsingh Chawla and Ors. vs Smt. Soni @ Vandana Gurumkhdas Jagiasi and Ors.

Manik Manohar Kale Since Deceased Throu His L.H. vs Dayyabai Jaywant Shinde Alias Dayabai David Thorat