Dismissed¶¶25

Sanjay Gaurishankar Sharma and Anr. v. Devang Dinesh Parmar and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2025WP/3621/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No. 3621 of 2024 (file 17-WP-3621-2024), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Gauri Godse J., decided 20 June 2025. Petitioner Sanjay Gaurishankar Sharma v. Devang Dinesh Parmar (Respondent No. 1, in person), BMC and MHADA. Challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution to interlocutory order dated 7th October 2023 allowing amendment of plaint; Section 105 CPC appellate remedy reserved; additional written statement permitted within four weeks; amendment of pleadings; non-interference with interlocutory orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file an additional written statement within four weeks; right reserved under Section 105 CPC to challenge the impugned order in appeal if the final decree is adverse; subject thereto, the writ petition dismissed. ¶¶25

Sanjay Gaurishankar Sharma and Anr. vs Devang Dinesh… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the purely interlocutory order dated 7th October 2023 allowing amendment of the plaint. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

The impugned order is purely an interlocutory order and, normally, the court should be slow in interfering with such interlocutory orders.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

In view of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it will always be open for the petitioners to challenge the impugned order in an appeal in the event the final decree is adverse to them.

¶¶14

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner can raise all possible contentions permissible in law by filing an additional written statement, this was not a case to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶¶21
The petitioner is permitted to file an additional written statement within four weeks to raise all possible contentions permissible in law.ratio¶¶20
It was clarified that 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 will remain open at the time of final hearing of the suit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Gauri Godse, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an interlocutory order dated 7th October 2023 allowing amendment of the plaint in a pending suit. Held: courts should normally be slow in interfering with interlocutory orders; Section 105 CPC leaves it open to the petitioners to challenge the amendment order in appeal if the final decree is adverse. Since the petitioner could raise all permissible contentions through an additional written statement, permitted to be filed within four weeks, this was not a case for interference under Article 227. It was clarified that the observations in the impugned order were confined to deciding the amendment application, with all contentions on merits open at the final hearing of the suit. Petition dismissed, reserving the Section 105 CPC right.

¶1

17-WP-3621-2024.docx

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3621 OF 2024

¶5

Sanjay Gaurishankar Sharma … Petitioner

¶6

Vs. Devang Dinesh Parmar and Others … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ramesh D. Soni a/w. Mr. Sachin Chowdhari for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Santosh Mali for Respondent – BMC.

¶9

Mr. Devang Parmar -Respondent No. 1 – present in person. Mr. P.G. Lad a/w. Ms. Aparna Kalathil and Ms. Sayli Apte for MHADA.

¶10

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 20^th JUNE 2025

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

1. This writ petition is filed to challenge the order dated

¶13

7^th October 2023 allowing the application for amendment of the plaint.

¶14

The impugned order is purely an interlocutory order. Normally, the court should be slow in interfering with such interlocutory order. In view of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) it will always be open for the petitioners to challenge the impugned order in an appeal, in

¶15

the event the final decree is adverse to the petitioners.

¶16

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARIRAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2025.06.21 05:06:45 +0200

¶17

1/2

¶18

17-WP-3621-2024.docx

¶19

The petitioner can always raise all possible contentions

¶20

as permissible in law, by filing additional written statement. The petitioner is therefore permitted to file their additional written statement within four weeks. Hence, this is not a case

¶21

to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore, clarified that the observations made

¶22

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.

¶23

4. Subject to the aforesaid observations, and reserving

¶24

the right under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

¶25

the petition is dismissed.

¶26

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶27

2/2

Sanjay Gaurishankar Sharma and Anr. v. Devang Dinesh Parmar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Gaurishankar Sharma and Anr. v. Devang Dinesh Parmar and Ors.

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

Nav-Tushar B-Wing Chs Limited, Chairman/Secretary Rahul Yashwant Meher vs Santosh Singh Ujagarshigh Virde and Another

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

Vishwadarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. and Anr. vs Ghodawat Education Serv. L. L. P. and Ors.

Baban Dattatray Gholap vs Laxman Kondiba Gholap Deceased

Anant Shankar Dalvi vs Geeta Suresh Bhosle and Others

Vishram Vijayrao Lomate vs Dadaso Ramesh Kokate