Dismissed¶¶19

Baburao Dnyanu Shinde v. Shivaji Shankar Shinde and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Nov 2025WP/4772/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, Writ Petition No. 4772 of 2023, decided November 4, 2025, S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J. — amendment of written statement; proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC; test of due diligence; commencement of trial equated with commencement of cross-examination, not mere tender of evidence affidavit; no-cross order set aside; supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227; writ petition dismissed, upholding Trial Court's order below Exhibit 144 in Regular Civil Suit No. 387 of 2018.

What did the court decide?

Until the cross-examination of the witnesses begins, the trial cannot be said to have commenced, even where the Plaintiff has tendered an evidence affidavit. ¶¶19

Baburao Dnyanu Shinde Vs Shivaji Shankar Shinde and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order allowing the Respondents/Defendants' application for amendment of the written statement, filed after evidence affidavits were tendered, was sustainable, given the Petitioner's contention that it was belated and did not satisfy the test of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

¶¶17

Court's answer

Until the cross-examination of the witnesses begins, the trial cannot be said to have commenced, even where the Plaintiff has tendered an evidence affidavit.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since the amendment application was filed when the cross-examination of witnesses had yet to commence, the embargo contemplated under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not operate in this case.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

The Trial Court rightly considered these aspects and allowed the amendment of the written statement.ratio¶¶19
This Court finds no jurisdictional error in the impugned order requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 13th December 2022 of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara, below Exhibit 144 in Regular Civil Suit No. 387 of 2018, allowing the Respondents/Defendants' application for amendment of the written statement, moved after the Plaintiff's evidence affidavits were tendered and after a no-cross order against the Defendants was set aside. Held: the amendment application was filed when the cross-examination of witnesses had yet to commence; until cross-examination begins, the trial cannot be said to have commenced, so the embargo in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not operate. The Trial Court rightly allowed the amendment; no jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227. Writ petition rejected; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

18-WP - 4772 - 2023 .doc

¶2

VRJ

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV

¶5

Digitally signed by VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2025.11.06 18:18:15 +0530

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4772 OF 2023

¶7

Baburao Dnyanu Shinde … Petitioner V/s. Shivaji Shankar Shinde & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Rushikesh C. Barge for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Nikhil Wadikar (through V.C.) i/by Mr. Nandu Pawar for respondents.

¶10

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 4, 2025

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Present Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 13th

¶13

December 2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara, below Exhibit 144 in Regular Civil Suit No. 387 of 2018, whereby the application filed by Respondents/Defendants seeking amendment of the written statement has been allowed.

¶14

Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that, in fact, the evidence affidavit of the witnesses had been tendered. Thereafter, no-cross order was passed against Defendants, which was later set aside. At this stage, an application was filed seeking

¶15

¶16

18-WP - 4772 - 2023 .doc

¶17

amendment of in the written statement, which could not have been allowed as it was filed at a belated stage and does not satisfy the test of due diligence.

¶18

Learned advocate appearing for respondents, however, supports the impugned order.

¶19

Having considered the submissions advanced, it can be observed that application seeking amendment in written statement was filed when the cross-examination of witnesses had yet to commence. Although Plaintiff had tendered evidence affidavit, unless the cross-examination begins, it cannot be said that trial has commenced. Therefore, embargo contemplated under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, would not operate in present case. The Trial Court has rightly considered the aforesaid aspect and allowed amendment in written statement. This Court do not find any jurisdictional error requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Writ Petition stands rejected.

¶20

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶21

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

¶22

Baburao Dnyanu Shinde v. Shivaji Shankar Shinde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburao Dnyanu Shinde v. Shivaji Shankar Shinde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gorakh Shankarrao Deshmukh vs Sanjiwani Shashikant Landge

Padmakar Haribhau Muley vs the Competent Authority Land Acquistion and Another

Sunil Ramchandra Mirgal Vs Raghunath Ramchandra Mirgal

Nitesh Shivaji Ingle vs the Divisional Commissioner Chh. Sambhajinagar and Others

Archana Anand Yelmar and Anr. Vs Sau Trupti Dattarey Chaugale Alias Trupti Murlidhar Yelmar and Anr.

Madhukar Mahadev Sakpal Vs Savita Baban Sakpal and Ors.