Disposed¶23

Shankarrao Shripatrao Ghodake and Another v. Bharatrao Shripatrao Ghodake Since Deceased Thr Lrs Anant Bharat Ghodake and Others

Bombay HC23 Feb 2026WP/1405/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of written statement; proviso to Order VI Rule 17; due diligence; partition suit; ancestral property; common hotchpotch; cross-examination suggestions; Exhibit-257; Special Civil Suit No.1 of 2025; Civil Judge S.D. Tuljapur; Aurangabad Bench; writ petition disposed of without interference; defendants may refer to unpleaded ancestral properties in cross-examination despite rejected amendment application.

What did the court decide?

This Court does not find it necessary to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the amendment application; the writ petition is disposed of on that basis. ¶23

Shankarrao Shripatrao Ghodake and Another vs Bharatrao Shripatrao Ghodake Since Deceased Thr Lrs Anant Bharat Ghodake and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly rejected the petitioners'/defendants' application below Exhibit-257 for amendment of the written statement, having regard to the due-diligence requirement of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

This Court does not find it necessary to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the amendment application; the writ petition is disposed of on that basis.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Although the written statement contains no stipulation as to the aforesaid properties, absence of such pleadings shall not be an impediment for the defendants to put up their defence in cross-examination, by extracting admissions from the plaintiffs as to existence and joint nature of such properties or by putting suggestions giving reference to properties not included in the suit.

¶22

Key takeaways

Pleadings shall consist of statement of facts; evidence need not be pleaded.obiter¶20
The Trial Court is directed to consider the above observations during the course of further proceedings.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) [S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.] disposed of a writ petition preferred by defendants in Special Civil Suit No.1 of 2025 (suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral property before Civil Judge S.D., Tuljapur), challenging rejection of their application (below Exhibit-257, order dated 31.10.2025) to amend the written statement by incorporating particulars of ancestral properties (survey nos. 88, 442 etc.) allegedly not brought into common hotchpotch. The Trial Court had refused amendment on the ground that due diligence contemplated in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 was not complied with, while observing that the proposed amendment introduced no new defence and accorded with the plea in paragraph no.6 of the written statement. The High Court declined to interfere, observing that pleadings need consist only of statements of fact and evidence need not be pleaded, and that absence of specific pleadings as to such properties shall not impede the defendants from putting up their defence in cross-examination through admissions or suggestions referring to properties not included in the suit; the Trial Court was directed to consider these observations in further proceedings.

¶1

wp 1405.26.odt

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:10817

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

70 WRIT PETITION NO.1405 OF 2026

¶6

Shankarrao Shripatrao Ghodake And Another

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Bharatrao Shripatrao Ghodake Since Deceased Thr. Lrs. Anant Bharat Ghodake And Others

¶9

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. M.S. Kulkarni Advocate for Respondents 1a to 1d : Mr. A.S. More

¶10

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : March 09, 2026

¶11

FINAL ORDER :-

¶12

Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated 31.10.2025 passed below Exhibit-257 in special Civil Suit No.1 of 2025 pending before the learned Civil Judge S.D, Tuljapur, whereby application filed by the petitioners/defendants seeking amendment in written statement has been rejected.

¶13

Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate appearing for petitioners. Mr. More, learned advocate appears for respondent nos.1-A to 1-D/original plaintiffs (contesting respondents) and he accepts notice for them. Notice for respondent nos.2 to 32 would not be necessary in view of limited controversy raised in this petition.

¶14

2 wp 1405.26.odt

¶15

Learned advocate appearing for petitioners and contesting respondents insisted for final disposal of the matter at admission stage, accordingly advanced their submissions.

¶16

Respondents/plaintiffs instituted suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral property. The petitioners/defendants appeared in the suit and filed written statement thereby raising contention that all joint family properties are not brought in common hotchpotch, therefore suit is not maintainable in present form. The Trial Court framed issues, evidence of plaintiffs was recorded. In crossexamination on behalf of defendants, plaintiff was put suggestion as regards to existence of joint family property in survey no.88, survey no.442, etc. An objection was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs that in absence of specific pleadings in written statement about aforesaid properties, questions in respect of those properties cannot be permitted.

¶17

At this stage, petitioners filed application below Exhibit257 seeking permission for amendment in written statement to incorporate particulars of aforesaid properties in deference to defence already incorporated in paragraph no.6 of written statement. The Trial Court declined permission to amend

¶18

3 wp 1405.26.odt

¶19

written statement for reason that due diligence as contemplated in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 has not been complied with. Pertinently, Trial Court observed that proposed amendment does not introduce new defence and same is in consonance with the plea already setup in paragraph no.6 of the written statement.

¶20

It is trite that the pleadings shall consist statement of facts. The evidence need not be pleaded. In the present case, pleadings in paragraph no.6 of written statement clearly depict that petitioners/defendants have pleaded that all ancestral properties are not brought into common hotch-potch. In deference to aforesaid defence, cross-examination was conducted and plaintiff was put to suggestion as regards to the ancestral properties which are not included as suit properties. Aforesaid part of cross-examination is in fact suggestion given to witness in deference to the defence already put forth in the written statement. Therefore, although, there is no stipulation in the written statement as regards to aforesaid properties, there was no impediment for defendants to extract admission from plaintiffs as to existence of property and joint nature of such properties or put suggestions giving reference of properties not included in suit. Therefore, Trial Court may be

¶21

4 wp 1405.26.odt

¶22

right in refusing the amendment, however, absence of the pleadings as to properties shall not be impediment for defendants to put up their defense in cross- examination giving reference to such properties.

¶23

In that view of the matter, this Court do not find necessary to interfere in the impugned order. However, trial court shall consider observations made here-in-above during course of further proceedings. Writ Petition stands disposed of .

¶24

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) …

¶25

AAA/-

Shankarrao Shripatrao Ghodake and Another v. Bharatrao Shripatrao Ghodake Since Deceased Thr Lrs Anant Bharat Ghodake and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankarrao Shripatrao Ghodake and Another v. Bharatrao Shripatrao Ghodake Since Deceased Thr Lrs Anant Bharat Ghodake and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajabsingh Mansingh Bahure vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mirza Ekbal Baig Mirza Ibrahim Baig vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Shama Thakre vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sai Industries through Its Proprietor Sanjay Chandrakant More vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Nanasaheb Alias Dnyaneshwar Sidram Solanke Thr Its General Power of Attorney Holder vs Sadashiv Tulshirmji Lomte Died Thr Lrs Dwarkabai Sadashiv Lomte and Others

Mahatma Phule Yuvak Vikas Mandal Dhule Thr Its Secretary and Others vs Ramesh Baburao Sonwane and Others