Quashed¶26

Kalala Shivayya Pujari v. Umang Vinod Shah and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Jan 2026WP/16393/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Madhav J. Jamdar J.; Writ Petition No.16393 of 2025; Kalala Shivayya Pujari v. Umang Vinod Shah; amendment of plaint; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; proviso; due diligence; jurisdictional error; jurisdictional fact; Exhibit-15; Regular Civil Appeal No.216 of 2020; Principal District Judge Pune; consent quash and remand; fresh disposal; merits kept open; Vidyabai v. Padmalatha (2009) 2 SCC 409; decision dated 25 February 2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07 August 2025 of the Principal District Judge, Pune below Exhibit-15 in Regular Civil Appeal No.216 of 2020 quashed and set aside by consent; Exhibit-15 application remanded to the learned Appellate Court for fresh disposal; merits of Exhibit-15 and all contentions expressly kept open. ¶26

Kalala Shivayya Pujari vs Umang Vinod Shah and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 07 August 2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Pune below Exhibit-15 in Regular Civil Appeal No.216 of 2020 is legal and valid, given that it does not disclose consideration of the due-diligence requirement in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

¶10

Court's answer

The impugned order does not show that the due diligence provided in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was taken into consideration by the learned Principal District Judge, which constitutes the jurisdictional error alleged by the Petitioner; per Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, unless the jurisdictional fact envisaged by the proviso is found to exist, the court has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the plaint.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

By consent of both sides, the order dated 07 August 2025 of the learned Principal District Judge, Pune below Exhibit-15 in Regular Civil Appeal No.216 of 2020 is quashed and set aside, and the Exhibit-15 application is remanded back to the learned Appellate Court for fresh disposal.

¶26

Key takeaways

This Court has not considered the merits of the Exhibit-15 application filed in Regular Civil Appeal No.216 of 2020, and all contentions in that behalf are expressly kept open.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Madhav J. Jamdar, J.; 25 February 2026) in Writ Petition No.16393 of 2025 (Kalala Shivayya Pujari v. Umang Vinod Shah & Anr.) challenged the order dated 07.08.2025 of the Principal District Judge, Pune below Exhibit-15 in Regular Civil Appeal No.216 of 2020. The Court found that the impugned order did not show that the due-diligence condition in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC had been taken into consideration — a jurisdictional requirement, reliance being placed on Vidyabai v. Padmalatha (2009) 2 SCC 409, under which absent the jurisdictional fact the court has no jurisdiction to allow amendment of the plaint. By consent, the impugned order was quashed and set aside and the Exhibit-15 application remanded to the Appellate Court for fresh disposal; the merits were expressly left open.

¶1

914--WP-16393-2025.DOC

¶2

Akash Tayde

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.16393 OF 2025

¶5

Kalala Shivayya Pujari …Petitioner Through PA Holder Shobha Shailesh Suvarna Versus Umang Vinod Shah & Anr. …Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sachin S. Punde a/w Mr. Suraj Jadhav, for the Petitioner. Mr. Vijay Singh i/b Mohini Rehpade, for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 25^th February 2026

¶8

PC:-

¶9

Heard Mr. Punde, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

¶10

By the present Writ Petition the challenge is to the legality and validity of order dated 07^th August 2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Pune below Exhibit-15 in Regular Civil Appeal No.216 of 2020.

¶11

Page 1

¶12

914--WP-16393-2025.DOC

¶13

Akash Tayde

¶14

It is the submission of Mr. Punde, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the learned Principal District Judge has committed a jurisdictional error as proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) has not been taken into consideration.

¶15

It is the submission of Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents that the due diligence as contemplated by proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been pleaded in the said application bearing Exhibit-15.

¶16

However, the impugned order do not show that the due diligence as provided in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 has been taken into consideration by the learned Principal District judge. The Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai v. Padmalatha¹ has held that, it is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such

¶17

an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on

¶18

1 (2009) 2 SCC 409

¶19

Page 2

¶20

914--WP-16393-2025.DOC

¶21

Akash Tayde

¶22

exercise of its jurisdiction. The court's jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint.

¶23

In view of the above position, both the learned Counsel submit that by consent impugned order dated 07^th August 2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Pune below Exhibit-15 in Regular Civil Appeal No.216 of 2020 be quashed and set aside and by consent the said application be remanded back to the learned Appellate Court for fresh disposal.

¶24

In view of the above discussion, following order is passed :-

¶25

ORDER

¶26

i. Order dated 07^th August 2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Pune below Exhibit-15 in Regular Civil Appeal No.216 of 2020 is quashed and set aside by consent and said application bearing Exhibit-15 filed in Regular Civil Appeal No.216 of 2020 is remanded back to the learned Appellate Court for fresh disposal.

¶27

Page 3

¶28

914--WP-16393-2025.DOC

¶29

Akash Tayde

¶30

ii. It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits of said Exhibit-15 application filed in Regular Civil Appeal No.216 of 2020 and all contentions in that behalf are expressly kept open.

¶31

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶32

Page 4

Kalala Shivayya Pujari v. Umang Vinod Shah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalala Shivayya Pujari v. Umang Vinod Shah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sawpnil Sunil Masal vs the State of Maharashtra

Madanmohan Chandrabhan Gupta Sole Proprietor of Ms Advance Advertisers vs Santacruz West Education Society

Ramnarain Sons Private Limited vs Andheri Girls Educations Society Thr. Its Present Trustees and Ors.

Swati Nirbhay Pimple vs Nirbhay Sudhir Pimple

Sandip Somnath Hiray vs State of Maharashtra

Umesh Jakhubai Nandu vs Rajesh Mahadeo Sangar and Ors.