Dismissed¶28

Ajay Rajkumar Shukla v. Rupchand Bhagchand Kasliwal and Others

Bombay HC13 Jan 2026WP/12397/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; withdrawal of prayer/claim; plaintiff is master of plaint; Commercial Summary Suit; maintainability objection; preliminary stage before framing of issues; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited AIR 2022 SC 4256; District Judge Shrirampur; Exhibit-33; refund Rs.2,29,95,660/- with interest @ 24% per annum; supply of 4000 quintal sugar; writ petitions dismissed with maintainability objections kept open; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; S. G. Chapalgaonkar J.; 13 January 2026; W.P. Nos. 12396, 12397 and 12415 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the petitioner; the writ petitions were dismissed, with all objections and contentions regarding maintainability of the suit kept open for consideration in accordance with law. ¶28

Ajay Rajkumar Shukla vs Rupchand Bhagchand Kasliwal and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the petitioner; the writ petitions were dismissed, with all objections and contentions regarding maintainability of the suit kept open for consideration in accordance with law.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions challenging the order dated 08.08.2025 of the learned District Judge, Shrirampur allowing the plaintiff's Exhibit-33 application to amend the plaint by withdrawing one of the prayers (after the defendant had raised an objection to the maintainability of the Commercial Summary Suit) have any merit.

¶12

Court's answer

The law does not prevent a plaintiff from seeking amendment of the plaint at least prior to framing of issues and commencement of trial.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The only bar on such amendment is that it shall not be inconsistent with the pleadings, shall not take away an admission incorporated in the plaint, or change the nature of the suit.

¶23

Key takeaways

The plaintiff is master of the suit and can withdraw a prayer/claim in the suit; the learned District Judge was right in so observing.ratio¶24
Merely because the petitioner/defendant had raised its objection to the maintainability of the suit based on a particular prayer, the plaintiff cannot be precluded from withdrawing that prayer by appropriate amendment of the plaint.ratio¶24
Applying the principle in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (AIR 2022 SC 4256) that amendments are to be liberally construed, nothing was brought to the notice of this Court to show that the amendment withdrawing one of the prayers could not be granted for any reason.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Coram: S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J. (13 January 2026) — Writ Petition No. 12396 of 2025 (decided along with W.P. Nos. 12397 and 12415 of 2025), Ajay Rajkumar Shukla v. Rupchand Bhagchand Kasliwal and Others. Dismissed. The writ petitions challenged the order dated 08.08.2025 passed below Exhibit-33 by the District Judge, Shrirampur in Commercial Summary Suit No.2/2025, permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint by withdrawing one of its prayers (the alternate prayer for refund of Rs.2,29,95,660/- with interest @ 24% per annum upon failure to supply 4000 quintals of sugar), after the defendant had objected to the maintainability of the suit. Held: the suit was at a preliminary stage, prior to framing of issues and commencement of trial; the law does not prevent amendment of plaint at that stage, the only bars being inconsistency with pleadings, removal of an admission in the plaint, or change in the nature of the suit; the plaintiff is master of the plaint/suit and may withdraw a prayer, and cannot be precluded from doing so merely because the defendant's maintainability objection rested on that prayer; relying on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, AIR 2022 SC 4256, nothing was placed before the Court showing the amendment could not be granted. All objections regarding maintainability of the suit were expressly kept open to be considered in accordance with law.

¶1

901-903.odt

¶2

(1)

¶3

2026:BHC-AUG:1545

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 12396 OF 2025

¶6

AJAY RAJKUMAR SHUKLA VERSUS

¶7

RUPCHAND BHAGCHAND KASLIWAL AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr. Ashwin Vinayak Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. G. P. Darandale, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Ujwal Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 to 15.

¶9

AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12397 OF 2025 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12415 OF 2025

¶10

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 13^th JANUARY, 2026.

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

The present Writ Petitions takes exception to order dated 08.08.2025 passed below Exhibit-33 by District Judge, Shrirampur in Commercial Summary Suit No.2/2025.

¶13

The respondent/plaintiff instituted Summary Suit with multiple prayers. First prayer is to put charge on property of respondent no.1. Second prayer is for injunction from creating third party right and interest over suit property. Third prayer is regarding mandatory injunction for supply of 4000 quintal sugar. Fourth prayer is an alternate prayer, by which plaintiff sought relief that in case defendant failed to supply sugar to plaintiff, then amount of Rs.2,29,95,660/- shall be directed to be refunded by

¶14

901-903.odt

¶15

(2)

¶16

defendant alongwith interest @ 24% per annum. The other prayers are regarding compensation and damages.

¶17

The petitioner/defendant appeared in suit and raised objection as to maintainability of suit. At this stage, plaintiff filed application below Exhibit-33 seeking amendment of plaint, particularly to withdraw one of the relief as claimed in plaint. The aforesaid application was opposed by petitioner on ground that plaintiff is withdrawing prayer only after petitioner/defendant raised objection as to maintainability of suit and wants to wipe off defence/objection raised by petitioner/defendant.

¶18

The learned District Judge after considering rival submissions allowed application holding that plaintiff is master of plaint and entitle to withdraw any prayer in plaint. It is observed that proposed amendment is technical in nature and plaintiff cannot be precluded from making such amendment.

¶19

Mr. Ashwin Hon, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner vehemently submits that plaintiff is trying to frustrate defence that was raised on behalf of petitioner/defendant. The specific objection was raised that suit cannot be treated as Commercial Suit. However, instead of arguing on objection raised by petitioner, application for withdrawal of one of the claim in suit has been filed. Such course could not have been allowed.

¶20

901-903.odt

¶21

(3)

¶22

Per contra, learned Advocates appearing for respondents supports impugned order.

¶23

Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that Commercial Suit is at preliminary stage. It has not reached to stage of framing of issues. Although defendant raised objection as to maintainability of suit, plaintiff appears to have taken corrective steps to withdraw one of the prayer, so that Summary Suit can be maintained. The law do not prevent plaintiff from seeking amendment in plaint atleast prior to framing of issues and commencement of trial. Only bar is that such amendment shall not be inconsistent with pleadings or shall not take away admission incorporated in plaint or change nature of suit.

¶24

Learned District Judge is right in observing that plaintiff is master of suit and can withdraw prayer/claim in suit. In present case, plaintiff wants to maintain other prayers in suit and withdraw one of the prayer, whereby he sought refund of amount in case of failure to supply sugar as agreed between parties. In this background, only because petitioner/defendant had raised objection as to maintainability of suit based on such prayer, plaintiff cannot be precluded from withdrawing such prayer by appropriate amendment in plaint.

¶25

901-903.odt

¶26

(4)

¶27

The Supreme Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr.¹ has observed that amendment shall be liberally construed and unless aforesaid fetters are brought to notice of Court, it shall be granted without demure. In present case, nothing is brought to notice of this Court to show that amendment to withdraw one of the prayer cannot be granted for any reason.

¶28

In that view of matter, there is no merit in Writ Petitions. Hence, Writ Petitions stand dismissed.

¶29

Needless to state here that all objections and contentions regarding maintainability of suit raised on behalf of petitioner are kept open and shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶30

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE

¶31

Devendra/January-2026

¶32

1 AIR 2022 SC 4256.

Ajay Rajkumar Shukla v. Rupchand Bhagchand Kasliwal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Rajkumar Shukla v. Rupchand Bhagchand Kasliwal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lakshamanrao Eknathrao Manal vs Indumati Sahebrao Dongaonkar and Others

Kisan Krushi Nivishtha Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Thr Its Chairman vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through Divisional Controller vs Kantabai Namdev Divekar

Manoj Renukadas Jogdand and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Manish Murlidhar Amrutkar vs the District Magistrate Dhule and Others

Popatlal Mishrilal Kothari Died Thr Lrs Vijay Popatlal Kothari and Others vs Samta Nilesh Katariya and Another