Allowed¶23

Hari Baburao Sawant Decd. Thr Lrs and Ors. v. Tarabai Ananta Dhawade Decd. Thr Lrs and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Mar 2025WP/6131/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of written statement; Order VI Rule 17 CPC 2000 Amendment; delay in filing amendment application; partition suit RCS No.328 of 2000 District Judge Pune; order dated 10 November 2023 quashed and set aside; Exh. 59 amendment application restored; Order 41 Rule 27 CPC additional evidence; writ petition allowed; three-month timeline; appeal to be decided expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; order dated 10 November 2023 quashed and set aside; application for amendment (Exh. 59) restored to the file of the learned District Judge, who is requested to decide it along with the application to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC preferably within three months, and thereafter decide the appeal expeditiously. ¶23

Hari Baburao Sawant Decd. Thr Lrs and Ors. vs Tarabai Ananta Dhawade Decd. Thr Lrs and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 10 November 2023 of the learned District Judge, Pune rejecting the application for amendment of the Written Statement in RCS No.328 of 2000 was sustainable, having been passed solely on the ground of delay without considering that the suit predated the 2000 Amendment to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and without examining the application on the parameters governing amendment of pleadings.

¶20

Court's answer

The impugned order rejecting the application for amendment cannot be sustained: it was based solely on delay in filing, without adverting to the fact that the suit was instituted prior to the 2000 Amendment to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and without examining the application on the parameters governing amendment of pleadings; the consideration was simply inadequate.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The application for amendment is required to be remitted back to the learned District Judge for a fresh decision in the light of the principles which govern the prayer for amendment in the pleadings.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N.J. Jamadar, J.; order dated 27 March 2025) allowed Writ Petition No.6131 of 2024 and quashed the order dated 10 November 2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune rejecting the application (Exh. 59) for amendment of the Written Statement in RCS No.328 of 2000 - a suit by the respondent for partition of her 1/5th share, decreed on 16 September 2014, now in appeal by the petitioners as legal representatives of the deceased defendant Hari Sawant. The rejection rested solely on delay in filing; the District Judge neither adverted to the fact that the suit was instituted prior to the 2000 Amendment to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, nor examined the application on the parameters governing amendment of pleadings; the consideration was found 'simply inadequate' and the order unsustainable. The amendment application stands restored to the file of the learned District Judge, to be decided along with the application to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC preferably within three months, whereafter the appeal itself is to be decided expeditiously.

¶1

2025:BHC-AS:15879

¶2

6 wp 6131 of 2024-2.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6131 OF 2024

¶4

Hari Baburao Sawant (deceased) through legal heirs and Ors.

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

Tarabai Ananta Dhawade (deceased) through legal heirs and Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Chaitanya B. Nikte with Mr. Prajit S. Sahane, Mr. Ritvij A. Kale, Mr. Swapnil S. Sangle, Mr. Sakshi Thombre, for Petitioners. Mr. Jaydeep Deo for Respondents. Ms. D.S.Deshmukh, AGP for State.

¶9

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 27 MARCH 2025

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 10 November 2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune on an application for amendment in the Written Statement in RCS No.328 of 2000.

¶14

The Respondent has instituted the said suit for partition of her 1/5th share in the suit property against Hari Sawant, the predecessor in title of the Petitioners. The said Suit was decreed by a judgment and order dated 16 September 2014. It appears that before the decree came to be passed, Hari Sawant passed away.

¶15

An appeal came to be preferred by the Petitioners in the capacity of the legal representatives of Hari Sawant. In the appeal, the Petitioners preferred

¶16

SSP (corrected order as per speaking to Minutes of Order dated 1 April 2025). 1/3

¶17

6 wp 6131 of 2024-2.doc

¶18

an application seeking amendment in the Written Statement to bring on record the factum of partition between Hari Sawant and the Petitioners and the mutation of the names of the Petitioners to the record of right of the suit property and certain additional contentions which, according to the Petitioners, disentitled the Plaintiffs from seeking partition.

¶19

By the impugned order, the learned District Judge was persuaded to reject the application.

¶20

From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the application came to be rejected solely on the ground that there was delay in filing the application for amendment. The learned District Judge has not at all adverted to the fact that the suit was instituted prior to 2000 Amendment to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Nor the application for amendment was examined on the parameters which govern the prayer for amendment in the pleadings. The consideration by the learned District Judge is simply inadequate. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and the application for amendment is required to be remitted back to the learned District Judge for a fresh decision in the light of the principles which govern the prayer for amendment in the pleadings.

¶21

Hence, the following order :

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) The Writ Petition stands allowed.

¶24

SSP (corrected order as per speaking to Minutes of Order dated 1 April 2025). 2/3

¶25

6 wp 6131 of 2024-2.doc

¶26

(ii) The order dated 10 November 2023 stands quashed and set

¶27

aside.

¶28

(iii) The application for amendment (Exh. 59) stands restored to the file of the learned District Judge.

¶29

(iv) Learned District Judge is requested to decide the said application along with the application to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order and thereafter decide the appeal itself as expeditiously as possible.”

¶30

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶31

SSP (corrected order as per speaking to Minutes of Order dated 1 April 2025). 3/3

¶32

Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 05/04/2025 16:45:49

Hari Baburao Sawant Decd. Thr Lrs and Ors. v. Tarabai Ananta Dhawade Decd. Thr Lrs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Baburao Sawant Decd. Thr Lrs and Ors. v. Tarabai Ananta Dhawade Decd. Thr Lrs 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

Alok Jayant Basrur vs Dr Mira Varalakshmi Sudhakar Savkur(Deceased)

Mrs. Sherona John Rodrigues vs Mr. Khozema Firoz Sager and Ors.

Prasad Rajnikant Sheth vs State of Maharashtra

Naniben Chhibubhai Patel (Deceased) and Ors. vs Savitaben Kabla Patel and Ors.

Shivashankar Govind Swami vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Sonali Trushant Walde vs Dhananjay Pundlik Chaudhari