Dismissed¶24

Prakash Laxman Ambede and Ors. v. Lakshmibai Babu Alaias Bala Ambede (Since Deceased) Thru. Lrs and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Jan 2026WP/13151/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal/retraction of no-objection pursis; permission to file written statement refused after fourteen-year delay; application below Exhibit-282 in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2011 (partition suit); order dated 13.06.2025 of Civil Judge Junior Division, Khed upheld; estoppel from decade-long participation; belated change of stand as abuse of process; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

As the application sought only simpliciter withdrawal of the pursis, assigned no sufficient or cogent reasons, and asserted neither misrepresentation nor fraud at the time of filing the pursis, the petitioners cannot be permitted to retract it. ¶22

Prakash Laxman Ambede and Ors. vs Lakshmibai Babu Alaias Bala Ambede (Since Deceased) Thru. Lrs and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the original defendants Nos. 5 to 16 (petitioners), having earlier filed a no-objection pursis in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2011, could retract the pursis and obtain the trial Court's permission to file their written statement after a lapse of more than fourteen years.

¶22

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Having submitted a no-objection pursis and participated in the suit for over a decade, the petitioners are prevented by the principle of estoppel from changing their stand.

¶23

Key takeaways

Permitting the change of stand at such a belated stage would constitute an abuse of the process of law, effectively allowing a party to litigate according to its whims.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur (Sachin S. Deshmukh, J.), 23-04-2026, dismisses Writ Petition No. 13151 of 2025 (Prakash Laxman Ambede and others v. Lakshmibai Babu Alaias Bala Ambede (since deceased) thr. LRs and others). The petitioners, original defendants Nos. 5 to 16 in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2011 (partition suit, Civil Judge Junior Division, Khed), had filed pursises in 2011 stating no objection to the suit being allowed; after more than fourteen years they sought to withdraw the pursis and permission to file written statements (application below Exhibit-282), which the trial Court rejected by order dated 13.06.2025. Upholding the rejection, the Court held that apart from simpliciter withdrawal no sufficient or cogent reasons were assigned and no misrepresentation or fraud was asserted, that the petitioners were prevented by estoppel after submitting the no-objection pursis and participating in the suit for over a decade, and that permitting so belated a change of stand would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶1

21-WP-13151-25.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 13151 OF 2025

¶5

PRAKASH LAXMAN AMBEDE AND OTHERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

LAKSHMIBAI BABU ALAIAS BALA AMBEDE (SINCE DECEASED) THRU. LRS AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade Advocate for Respondents No.3, 2(a to d), 4, 5, 6 (a to e), 7, 8: Ms. Vaishnavi R. Gaikwad h/f. Mr. Rushikesh G.Patil, Mr. S. M. Raikar

¶9

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 23-04-2026

¶10

PER COURT:-

¶11

The petitioners have raised an exception to the order dated 13.06.2025 below Exhibit-282 in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2011 rendered by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Khed, thereby rejecting the application seeking permission to file written statement.

¶12

The petitioners are the original defendants No.5 to 16 and the respondents No.1 to 8 are the original plaintiffs and respondents No.9 to 11 are the original defendants No.1 to 3. (Hereafter, the parties shall be referred to by their original status in the suit).

¶13

21-WP-13151-25.odt

¶14

¶15

The plaintiffs had instituted the Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2011 for partition claiming the suit property to be an ancestral property. Upon knowledge of the same, the defendants, particularly, the petitioners herein, filed a pursis on various occasions, stating their no objection for allowing the suit, while the other defendants had contested the suit.

¶16

In the interregnum, however, some defendants sought to withdraw the aforesaid pursis and filed the application below Exhibit-282, further seeking permission to file their written statement. However, the trial Court, after hearing both the parties, rejected the same by the order under challenge. Hence, the petitioners before this Court.

¶17

In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the order under challenge is unsustainable in law. The trial Court erred while rejecting the application solely on the ground of delay. The defendants can choose to withdraw the pursis, as long as the plaintiffs have not obtained a preliminary decree. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶18

Ms. Gaikwad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

¶19

have opposed the application and supported the order under challenge.

¶20

21-WP-13151-25.odt

¶21

¶22

Having heard the submissions from the litigating sides and upon perusal of the record indicates that the original pursis was filed in the year 2011, while the application for retracting the same came to be filed after the lapse of more than fourteen years. Except simpliciter withdrawal of the pursis, no sufficient or cogent reasons are assigned in the application. Moreover, there is no assertion of misrepresentation or fraud while filing the pursis. Thus, in the absence of the same, the petitioners cannot be permitted to retract the same.

¶23

Having submitted a no objection pursis and participated in the suit for over a decade, the Petitioners are also prevented by the principle of estoppel. Permitting this change in stand at such a belated stage would constitute an abuse of the process of law, effectively allowing a party to litigate according to their whims.

¶24

Resultantly, the writ petition sans merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶25

[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH] JUDGE

¶26

rrd

Prakash Laxman Ambede and Ors. v. Lakshmibai Babu Alaias Bala Ambede (Since Deceased) Thru. Lrs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Laxman Ambede and Ors. v. Lakshmibai Babu Alaias Bala Ambede (Since Deceased) Thru. Lrs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krushna Sunil Yamgar vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sahil Manoj Machare vs the State of Maharashtra

Nikhil Alias Nikesh Jaywant Sarwade vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amol Madhukar Awale vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arjun Laxman Motakatte vs State of Maharashtra

Balaji Alias Balu Laxman Chavan vs State of Maharashtra