Dismissed¶13

Abdul Kadir Ahmedsaheb Kokni and Ors. v. Abedin Mohammad Mohyoddin Kokni and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2025WP/1724/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC; commencement of trial; Vidyabai v. Padmalatha (2009) 2 SCC 409; oral gift Hibba; mutation of names; record of rights; temporary injunction rejected; pre-trial amendment allowed; Civil Judge Nashik; Bombay High Court writ petition dismissed. Single-judge Bench (Jamadar, J.) upholds the trial Court's order dated 26.09.2024 permitting the Plaintiffs' amendment regarding Defendant No. 10's unsigned mutation application; holds that the trial had not commenced despite settlement of issues in 2019, so the Order VI Rule 17 proviso bar did not apply; amendment is ancillary and non-prejudicial; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

This Court endorses the learned Civil Judge's finding that, though issues were settled, the trial had not commenced. ¶8

Abdul Kadir Ahmedsaheb Kokni and Ors. vs Abedin Mohammad Mohyoddin Kokni and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 26 September 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nashik, allowing the Respondents' application for amendment in the Plaint, is legal, proper and correct. +2 more

¶2

Court's answer

This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the amendment has been allowed at a pre-trial stage.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

This Court endorses the learned Civil Judge's finding that, though issues were settled, the trial had not commenced.

¶8

Key takeaways

Since the trial had not commenced — the Supreme Court in Vidyabai (Supra) having ruled that filing of an affidavit in examination-in-chief of witnesses amounts to commencement of proceedings — the interdict contained in the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 did not come into play.ratio¶8
All amendments necessary for the determination of the real controversy are required to be allowed; the element of potentiality of prejudice to the opponents and the possibility of complete change in the nature and character of the suit bear upon the exercise of discretion to permit amendment.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.) dismisses Writ Petition No. 1724 of 2025 challenging the order dated 26 September 2024 of the learned Civil Judge, Nashik, allowing the Respondents-Plaintiffs' application for amendment in the Plaint of a suit seeking cancellation of a gift deed executed on 10 October 2017 and declaration that Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 10 gifted their undivided interest by an oral gift (Hibba). Though issues were settled in 2019 and the Plaintiffs had not led evidence till 2024, the Court, endorsing the trial Court's finding and relying on Vidyabai And Others Vs Padmalatha And Anr, (2009) 2 SCC 409 (filing of an affidavit in examination-in-chief amounts to commencement of proceedings), held that the trial had not commenced and the interdict in the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 did not come into play. The amendment — concerning the mutation application in which Defendant No. 10's name remained though he had not signed it — neither completely changed the nature or character of the Suit nor caused irretrievable prejudice, and left intact the foundation of the claim, which hinges on proof of Hibba. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the petition.

¶1

-WP-1724-2025.DOC

¶2

Arun Sankpal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1724 OF 2025

¶6

Abdul Kadir Ahmedsaheb Kokni & Anr Versus

¶7

..Petitioners

¶8

Abedin Mohammad Mohiyoddin Kokni & Ors …Respondents

¶9

Mr. Vivek Punjabi, for the Petitioners.

¶10

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 10^th FEBRUARY 2025

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶13

The Petitioner assails the legality, property and correctness of an

¶14

Order dated 26^th September 2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Nashik, whereby an application for amendment in the Plaint preferred by the Respondents came to be allowed.

¶15

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶16

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.02.15 15:10:34 +0530

¶17

The Respondents have instituted the Suit for cancellation of a gift executed on 10^th October 2017 by Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of Defendant Nos. 8 and 9, and declaration that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 10 have gifted their undivided interest in the suit property by an oral gift (Hibba) and the said gift has been accepted by the Plaintiffs and acted upon, and for consequential reliefs.

¶18

1/4

¶19

-WP-1724-2025.DOC

¶20

In the Plaint, it was inter alia asserted that Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 had sworn an Affidavit in the year 2013 giving their consent to mutate the names of the Plaintiffs in the record of rights of the suit property.

¶21

By the proposed amendment, the Plaintiffs professed to incorporate an averment in the Plaint that the Defendant No. 10 had also agreed to file an Application before the Revenue Authority to mutate the names of the Plaintiffs and, therefore, his name was shown in the Application. However, later on, Defendant No.10 sought time to file such Application as Defendant No. 10 intended to purchase land, and agreed to file the Application after the said land was purchased. Thus the name of Defendant No.10 remained on the Application though he had not signed the said Application.

¶22

Mr. Punjabi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, would urge that the aforesaid amendment was actuated by a design to overcome a patent defect in the Plaintiffs’ case. Application for temporary injunction, preferred by the Plaintiffs, was rejected by the trial court explicitly observing that the said Application for mutation of names appeared to be suspicious. Thus, to fill in the lacuna in the Plaintiffs’ case, the instant Application for amendment was filed.

¶23

Mr. Punjabi further submitted that issues were settled in the year

¶24

The Plaintiffs did not led evidence till the year 2024. Thus, the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai And Others Vs

¶25

2/4

¶26

-WP-1724-2025.DOC

¶27

Padmalatha And Anr¹ governs the situation at hand and it can be said that the trial had commenced.

¶28

The learned Civil Judge recorded that though issues were settled, trial had not commenced. The said finding of the learned Civil Judge appears to be impeccable. In the case of Vidyabai (Supra), the Supreme Court has ruled, in clear and explicit terms, that filing of an Affidavit in examination-in-chief of the witnesses would amount to “commencement of proceeding”. Thus the interdict contained in the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, did not come into play.

¶29

The learned Civil Judge was of the view that the proposed amendment was necessary for the determination of real question in controversy.

¶30

It is trite that all amendments which are necessary for the determination of the real controversy are required to be allowed. Undoubtedly the element of potentiality of a prejudice to the Opponents and the possibility of complete change in the nature and character of the Suit, if the amendment is allowed, are few of the other factors which bear upon the exercise of discretion to permit the amendment in the pleading.

¶31

On the aforesaid touchstone, reverting to the facts of the case, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that proposed amendment either changes the nature or character of the Suit completely or

¶32

1 (2009) 2 SCC 409.

¶33

3/4

¶34

-WP-1724-2025.DOC otherwise cause irretrievable prejudice to the Defendants. The amendment, in a sense, relates to an ancillary aspect of the matter, namely, the Application preferred by the Defendants to mutate names of the Plaintiffs to the record of rights of the suit land. The substance of the claim is that Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 10 had gifted their undivided share in the suit property by an oral gift (Hibba). The fate of

¶35

the suit would thus hinge upon proof of Hibba. The proposed amendment does not change the said foundation of the Plaintiffs claim.

¶36

Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby amendment has been allowed at a pre-trial stage.

¶37

Petition thus stands dismissed.

¶38

4/4

Abdul Kadir Ahmedsaheb Kokni and Ors. v. Abedin Mohammad Mohyoddin Kokni and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kadir Ahmedsaheb Kokni and Ors. v. Abedin Mohammad Mohyoddin Kokni and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pournima Nikhil Salvi Vs Nikhil Kiran Salvi

Waman Sakharam Kokare vs Bhagubai Kondiba Kokare

Ravi Sidram Mamure and others vs Surya Constructions and others through Prakash Vitthalrao Suravase

Shalini Chandrakant Bhatkar Since Decd. Thr. Her Son Sanjeev C. Bhatkar vs the Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate Dapoli and Ors.

Gautam Limbaji Khurnagale vs Nanadkishor Narayandas Karwa and Anr.

Chandrashekhar Sadashiv Karkhanis vs Arvind Sadashiv Karkhanis