Dismissed¶18

Kashinath S/O. Chandu Satharkhar (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Eknath S/O. Kashinath Satharkar (Died) and Ors. v. Ramchandra Marotrao Narad

Bombay HC13 Nov 2025WP/6821/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.), WP 6821/2025, decided 13.11.2025: writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against 17th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur's order dated 28.07.2025 allowing respondent/plaintiff Ramchandra Marotrao Narad's amendment application at Exhibit 68 in R.C.S. No.382 of 2014 is DISMISSED. Amendments held clarificatory, non-altering the nature of suit, filed before evidence began; defendants may controvert by additional pleadings; no costs.

What did the court decide?

A perusal of the proposed amendment shows the plaintiff seeks to incorporate certain clarifications, and nothing indicates the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit. ¶16

Kashinath S/O. Chandu Satharkhar (Dead) Thr. Lrs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:11971

¶2

1 7. WP 6821 of 2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6821 OF 2025

¶5

KASHINATH S/O. CHANDU SATHARKHAR (DEAD) THR. LRS., EKNATH S/O. KASHINATH SATHARKAR (DIED) AND OTHERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RAMCHANDRA MAROTRAO NARAD

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

Mr. C.F. Bhagwani, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶10

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATED : 13^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

The petitioners’ challenge is to the order dated 28.07.2025, passed by 17^th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, by which the application for amendment filed by the respondent/plaintiff at Exhibit 68 in R.C.S. No.382 of 2014, is allowed.

¶14

Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, by way of amendment application, the plaintiff has attempted to introduce certain facts, which were within the knowledge of plaintiff and the pleadings ought to have been incorporated in the plaint. Learned Advocate submits that the application for amendment was filed after the order on temporary injunction application was passed and it is an attempt to fill up the lacuna.

¶15

2 7. WP 6821 of 2025.odt

¶16

A perusal of the proposed amendment shows that the plaintiff wants to incorporate certain clarifications and there is nothing to indicate that the proposed amendment will change the nature of suit. It is pertinent to note that the amendment application is filed by the plaintiff before evidence was started in the suit and the defendants are, therefore, entitled to submit their pleadings to controvert the averments introduced by way of proposed amendment.

¶17

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial court has given due consideration to all the relevant aspects and considering the fact that the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the claim of the plaintiff and will not change the nature of suit, a well reasoned order is passed by the trial court, which needs no interference.

¶18

In view of these aspects, no indulgence is required under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶19

No order as to costs.

¶20

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶21

asd

Kashinath S/O. Chandu Satharkhar (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Eknath S/O. Kashinath Satharkar (Died) and Ors. v. Ramchandra Marotrao Narad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath S/O. Chandu Satharkhar (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Eknath S/O. Kashinath Satharkar (Died) and Ors. v. Ramchandra Marotrao Narad

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

Rajendra Janardhan Dhangade Vs Smt. Leelabai Wd/O. Kamleshsingh Chauvan and Others

Shri Baburao Sambshiv Chaudhari (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs Gurudas Marotrao Chaudhari

Shri. Ramesh S/O Bhagirath Rander vs Shri. Anil Hariprasad Jejani and Others

Sheikh Ismail S/O Usman Vs Sarangdhar S/O Sheshrao Tayade

Madan S/O Chintaman Rathi Vs Mujaffarkha Murtuzakha Pathan

Md. Yunus Opai S/O. Abdul Aziz Opai and Ors. vs M/S. 4 Wall Developers, Partnership Firm, Thr. Managing Partner, Sanjay Manohar Bhoot and Anr.