Allowed¶15

Sunil Motilalji Kalantri v. Sau. Nilima Sharadrao Gayki

Bombay HC25 Jul 2025WP/1345/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; Writ Petition No.1345 of 2025 (decided 06.08.2025, Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.); amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; withdrawal/deletion of relief of specific performance of contract; restriction of claim to refund of money; objection of 'change in the nature of the suit'; no prejudice to defendant; Special Civil Suit No.423/2024; amendment application at Exhibit-16; quashing of trial Court order dated 25.2.2025; direction for expeditious disposal of suit; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 25.2.2025 passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.423/2024 quashed and set aside; petitioner's application for amendment at Exhibit-16 allowed; trial Court directed to decide the suit expeditiously; no order as to costs. ¶15

Sunil Motilalji Kalantri vs Sau. Nilima Sharadrao Gayki — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

41-wp1345.25.odt 1/3

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.1345 OF 2025

¶4

(Sunil Motilalji Kalantri Vs. Sau.Nilima Sharadrao Gayki)

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶6

Mr. S.M.Vaishnav, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. G.N. Akolkar, Advocate for respondent.

¶7

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : 06th AUGUST, 2025.

¶8

Heard Mr. S.M. Vaishnav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.N. Akolkar, leaned counsel for the respondent.

¶9

The petitioner challenges the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for amendment.

¶10

The petitioner is original plaintiff who had filed the suit for specific performance of contract with alternate prayer for refund of amount. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed application under order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. seeking to withdraw the relief of specific performance of contract and amendment to that extent is prayed for. This application is rejected by the trial Court by observing that the amendment if allowed, will change the nature of the suit. It is submitted by

¶11

41-wp1345.25.odt 2/3

¶12

the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of pleadings on record the plaintiff wants to restrict the claim for refund of money only and is not interested to continue with the relief of specific performance of contract.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition and submits that the plaintiff was required to contest the suit as a whole and restricting the prayer to refund of money will amount to change in the nature of the suit.

¶14

It has to be seen that the plaintiff has filed application for amendment of plaint to delete the prayer for specific performance of contract and as a result, the plaintiff’s claim will be restricted to refund of money only. This amendment will not cause any prejudice to the defendant. I am of the view that this amendment will not change the nature of the suit in any manner and the impugned order observing that the proposed amendment amounts to change the nature of the suit is therefore unsustainable. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed.

¶15

Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.2.2025, passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.423/2024 is quashed and set aside. The application filed by

¶16

41-wp1345.25.odt 3/3

¶17

the petitioner for amendment at Exhibit-16 is allowed. In view of the controversy involved, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously.

¶18

No order as to costs.

¶19

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶20

Wadode

¶21

Signed by: Mr. Devendra Wadode Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 07/08/2025 10:38:16

Sunil Motilalji Kalantri v. Sau. Nilima Sharadrao Gayki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Motilalji Kalantri v. Sau. Nilima Sharadrao Gayki

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

Tarendra Purshottam Shejpal vs Santosh Shantayya Chenmenwar and Others

Prakash S/O. Marotrao Lonare vs Govt. of Maha., Thr. Divisional Dy. Registrar Co-Op. Societies (Dairy), Nagpur and Ors.

Narayan Marotrao Todase vs Govt. of Maha., Thr. Divisional Dy. Registrar Co-Op. Societies (Dairy), Nagpur and Ors.

Govinda S/O. Ganpat Bunde vs Sanjay S/O. Punaji Farkade and Another

Vijay S/O. Shankarrao Talewar vs Prafull S/O. Sadashiv Buty (Huf) Thr. Karta, Shrikrishna P. Buty

Vijaykumar Badridas Agrawal vs Amol Shridhar Thakre and Another