Krishna Shivshankar Mandge through Poa Shivshankar Dagdappa Mandge Vs Rahibai Dashrath Shinde and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Krishna Shivshankar Mandge through Poa Shivshankar Dagdappa Mandge Vs Rahibai Dashrath Shinde and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; application Exhibit 33 filed in RCS No. 70/2023 allowed; amendment to be carried out within a period of 4 weeks before the trial Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application Exhibit 33 seeking correction of the vendor's name in the plaint. +1 more

Court's answer

There is an apparent mistake committed by the plaintiff in mentioning the name of the vendor, and permitting such amendment would not change the nature of the suit in any manner.

Ratio / Principle

Since the trial has not commenced, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not apply to the case.

Key takeaways

The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. Samuel and others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and others (2012) 2 SCC (cited supra) has no application to the present case.ratio¶20
The findings recorded by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application are perverse.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure - Amendment of plaint - Correction of vendor's name - Plaintiff, in suit for injunction (RCS No. 70/2023) concerning Gut No. 101, village Samudrawani, Tq & Dist. Osmanabad, had in the plaint attributed the purchase to Mumtaj Sadul Attar vide registered Sale Deed No. 5474/2016 dated 04.11.2016, whereas the vendor's name (Sunil Revanappa Mandge) was wrongly typed - Application Exhibit 33 for correction rejected by the trial Court on the ground of possible change in the nature of the suit - Held: the mistake is apparent and is supported by the registered sale deed itself; permitting the amendment would not change the nature of the suit; the trial having not commenced, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not apply; the Supreme Court decision in J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh (2012) 2 SCC, relied on by both sides, has no application to the present case; the trial Court's findings are perverse - Writ petition allowed; amendment directed to be carried out within four weeks before the trial Court.

2025:BHC-AUG:322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 1667 OF 2024

Krishna Shivshankar Mandge Through Poa Shivshankar Dagdappa Mandge VERSUS

Rahibai Dashrath Shinde And Others

Mr. M. U. Shelke, Advocate for petitioner Mr. P. D. Dadpe, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Mr. S. B. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 03^rd January, 2025

PER COURT :-

Petitioner plaintiff in RCS No. 70/2023 being aggrieved by rejection of application filed below Exhibit 33 Rule VI of C.P.C. has preferred this petition.

Petitioner-plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for seeking injunction from causing obstruction into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff was the suit land Gut No. 101 northern middle side admeasuring 00 Hector 77R situated at village Samudrawani, Tq & Dist. Osmanabad. The pleadings in the plaint indicate that it is came to be mention in paragraph 2 of the plaint that suit property was purchased from Mumtaj Sadul Attar vide registered Sale Deed No. 5474/2016 dated 04.11.2016. Since the plaintiff realized that it was a mistake in the plaint application

1 of 3

929-WP-1667-2024

to state name of Mumtaj instead the name of the Vendor i.e., Sunil Revanappa Mandge, application Exhibit 33 came to be filed for the correction of the said mistake. This application is rejected by the learned trial Court with observation that there is a possibility of change in the nature of suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the trial Court has committed error in not considering the stage of the proceeding and he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of J. Samuel and others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and others (2012) 2 SCC which did not apply to the facts of the present case. It is his submission that since there is registered sale deed and which discloses the name of correct name of the vendor, the application ought to have been allowed.

Learned counsel for the contesting respondents opposes the petition on the ground by which placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court J. Samuel and others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and others (2012) 2 SCC .

Perusal of the record indicates that the suit is filed for seeking injunction in respect of the property which was purchased by the plaintiff vide Sale Deed No. 5474/2016. The contention of the plaintiff

2 of 3

929-WP-1667-2024

that instead of mentioning the name of the vendor in the said sale deed, name of Mumtaj Sadul Attar came to be wrongly typed. This gets support from the document i.e., registered sale deed. Thus, there is apparent mistake committed by the plaintiff in mentioning the name of the vendor & permitting such amendment would not change the nature of the suit in any manner.

The trial has not commenced and as such, the proviso to order VI Rule 17 would not apply to this Court. In respectful view of this Court, judgment (cited supra) has no application to the present case.

Findings recorded by learned trial Court for rejecting the application are perverse. Hence, petition stands allowed. Application Exhibit 33 filed in RCS No. 70/2023 stands allowed. Amendment be carried out within a period of 4 weeks from today before the trial Court.

bsj

3 of 3

929-WP-1667-2024