Ashok Daulat Borse and Another vs Nirmalabai Dinkar More and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ashok Daulat Borse and Another vs Nirmalabai Dinkar More and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the learned Civil Judge S.D. Dhule allowing the plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint below Exhibit 21 in Special Civil Suit No.404 of 2022 is liable to be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Court's answer

Amendment in the pleadings shall generally be allowed unless it is inconsistent with the original pleadings, seeks to withdraw an admission, or changes the nature of the suit.

Ratio / Principle

On the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs were not seeking to withdraw any admission or raising inconsistent pleas.

Key takeaways

A liberal approach is required in the matter of grant of amendment, subject to the stated exceptions, and the Trial Court applied those parameters in allowing the amendment as prayed.ratio¶22
No jurisdictional error in the impugned order was brought to the notice of the Court so as to warrant interference with it.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 12413 of 2025 (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.; decided 12.01.2026) — challenge to the order dated 7.12.2024 of the learned Civil Judge S.D. Dhule below Exhibit 21 in Special Civil Suit No.404 of 2022 (suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral property), allowing the application of respondent nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of plaint. Held, following Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022) 8 SCR 1121, that amendment of pleadings shall generally be allowed unless it is inconsistent with the original pleadings, seeks to withdraw an admission, or changes the nature of the suit; a liberal approach is required subject to those exceptions. The proposed amendment involved no withdrawal of admission or inconsistent pleas; the Trial Court applied the correct parameters (noting the Trial Court's reliance on Revajetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanswami and Sons, [(2009) MLJ online SC 12: (2009) 10 SC 84]); no jurisdictional error was shown warranting interference. Writ petition rejected (dismissed).

wp 12413.25.odt

2026:BHC-AUG:1061

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

13 WRIT PETITION NO. 12413 OF 2025

Ashok Daulat Borse And Another VERSUS

Nirmalabai Dinkar More And Others

... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.S. Patil

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : January 12, 2026

PER COURT :-

The present writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 7.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge S.D. Dhule, below Exhibit 21 in Special Civil Suit No.404 of 2022, by which the application for amendment of plaint submitted by respondent nos.1 and 2 has been allowed.

Respondent nos.1 and 2 instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of the ancestral property. They pleaded that on 26.6.2019 they sent a notice by registered post to defendants seeking partition, however, it was not acted upon hence, cause of action arose to file present suit. Admittedly, Trial in the suit is yet to be commenced. Even, issues are not framed till this date.

2

wp 12413.25.odt

At this stage, respondents/plaintiffs filed application below Exhibit-21 under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment in plaint. The Trial Court allowed application vide impugned order dated 7.12.2022.

Mr. Patil, learned advocate appearing for petitioners would submit that plaintiffs have sought amendment as to material particulars in the plaint and practically seeking to replace entire plaint. In such a contingencies, prayer for amendment could not have been entertained by the Trial Court. Mr. Patil, would further submit that cause of action as depicted in paragraph no.1 of the plaint is now changed by incorporating that cause of action arose subsequently. He would therefore urge that such an amendment would not have been allowed.

It is trite that amendment in the pleadings shall generally be allowed unless such an amendment is inconsistent with the original pleadings or seeks to withdraw the admission or changes the nature of the suit.

In the present case, looking to the proposed amendment, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are seeking to withdraw any

wp 12413.25.odt

3

admission or raising inconsistent pleas. The law on the point of grant or refusal of the amendment has recently been elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another reported in (2022) 8 SCR 1121.

In light of the proposition of law laid down by the aforesaid judgment, liberal approach is required to be adopted in the matter of grant of amendment subject to aforesaid exception. The trial court has applied the aforesaid parameters by relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court in case of Revajetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanswami and Sons and others reported in [(2009) MLJ online SC 12: (2009) 10 SC 84]and allowed the amendment, as prayed. No jurisdictional error has been brought to the notice of this Court so as to cause interference in the impugned order.

In that view of the matter, writ petition stands rejected.

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )

AAA