Allowed¶39

Haji Ahemed Abdulla Halari v. Pramod Vasant Banginwar and Others

Bombay HC26 Mar 2026WP/2501/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consequential amendment of written statement; Order VI Rule 17 CPC; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; Order 8 Rule 9; counter claim after commencement of evidence; amended plaint; termination of tenancy notice dated 07.11.2007; Ashok Kumar Kalra (2020) 2 SCC 394; Special Civil Suit no.20 of 2023; Digras, Yavatmal; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Prafulla S. Khubalkar J.; writ petition allowed; trial Court order quashed and set aside; Exhibit 120 amendment application allowed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the trial Court below application at Exhibit 120 in Special Civil Suit no.20 of 2023 quashed and set aside; the defendant no.1's amendment application at Exhibit 120 allowed; rule made absolute with no order as to costs. ¶39

Haji Ahemed Abdulla Halari vs Pramod Vasant Banginwar and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order dated 15.01.2026 rejecting the defendant's application (Exhibit 120) for consequential amendment of the written statement warranted interference. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

An application for consequential amendment has to be liberally allowed; the trial Court misdirected itself by focusing mainly on the introduction of new pleas and their non-coexistence with the earlier defence, failing to consider the application as a consequential amendment against the background of the amended plaint; hence the impugned order warranted interference.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The Exhibit 120 amendment was a consequential amendment filed specifically to counter the plaintiff's newly pleaded stand (introduced only through amendment to the plaint) regarding the notice dated 07.11.2007 and termination of tenancy; therefore the respondents' contention about delayed raising of the counter claim was not acceptable.

¶27

Key takeaways

Applying Ashok Kumar Kalra, a counter claim sought to be filed after evidence has started must be entertained where the cause of action accrues from the amended plaint; rejection of the amendment application solely because it was filed after evidence began was unjustified.ratio¶32
It is fairly settled law that an application for consequential amendment has to be liberally allowed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Prafulla S. Khubalkar J., allowed Writ Petition No. 2501 of 2026 and quashed the trial Court's order dated 15.01.2026 rejecting defendant no.1's Exhibit 120 application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for consequential amendment of the written statement in Special Civil Suit no.20 of 2023. The amendment responded to the plaintiff's amended plaint (allowed 01.08.2025) asserting termination of tenancy by notice dated 07.11.2007 — a stand absent from the original plaint — and sought to raise a counter claim; since the cause of action arose only from the amended plaint, the objection of delayed raising of the counter claim failed. Applying Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri, (2020) 2 SCC 394 (paras 34 and 57 reproduced), the Court held that a counter claim may be entertained even after recording of evidence has begun where it flows from a cause of action created by the amended plaint, that consequential amendments are to be liberally allowed, and that the trial Court erred by focusing solely on inconsistency of the new pleas with the earlier written statement.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:6113

¶2

1704WP2501-26.odt

¶3

1 Judgment

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2501 OF 2026

¶6

Haji Ahemed Abdulla Halari, Aged 80 years, Occ: Business, R/o Kacchi Chowk, Digras, Dist. Yavatmal.

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Pramod Vasant Banginwar, Aged 47 years, Occ: Business, R/o Near Balaji Mandir, Digras, Dist.Yavatmal.

¶10

Abdul Aziz Mohammad Yasin, Aged 70 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Barabhai Mohalla, Digras, Taluka Digras, District Yavatmal.

¶11

Farhad Yasmin Ahemed Jaman, Aged 42 years, Occ: Household, R/o Barshitakli, District Akola. RESPONDENTS

¶12

Shri Bhupesh Patil, Advocate with Shri Akhil Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.R. Choudhari, counsel for the respondents.

¶13

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : APRIL 17, 2026

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the trial Court rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) for consequential amendment to the written statement.

¶17

The petitioner is the original defendant no.1 in the suit filed by the respondent no.1 seeking declaration, eviction, possession, arrears of rent and damages. The petitioner-defendant no.1 has appeared in the suit and has filed his written statement and the suit proceeded at the stage of evidence. After the evidence of plaintiff was conducted, he filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment of

¶18

1704WP2501-26.odt 2 Judgment

¶19

plaint, which came to be allowed by order dated 01.08.2025. The defendant no.1 thereafter filed an application at Exhibit 120 for consequential amendment thereby seeking to introduce certain contentions in response to the amendment of plaint and seeking to raise a counter claim. The application was opposed by the plaintiff and it came to be rejected with costs by order dated 15.01.2026. The defendant no.1 has challenged this order by way of instant petition.

¶20

Shri Bhupesh Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for amendment was filed by the defendant no.1 by way of consequential amendment and in view of the notice dated 07.11.2007 filed by the plaintiff by amending the plaint alleging termination of tenancy, the defendant no.1 got a cause of action to file the counter claim and therefore the application for amendment of written statement ought to have been allowed. He submitted that the trial Court has considered the application for amendment by mainly focusing on the contents of the proposed amendment being inconsistent with the earlier stand of the defendant no.1, however by ignoring the right of the defendant no.1 to raise a counter claim in the background of accrual of cause of action based on amendment to the plaint. He therefore submitted that the defendant no.1 cannot be deprived of his right to raise a counter claim which was filed well within limitation. By relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Kalra Versus Wing CDR. Surendra Agnihotri & Others [ (2020) 2 SCC 394 ], he submitted that the counter claim sought to be filed by him even at the stage of evidence was required

¶21

1704WP2501-26.odt

¶22

3 Judgment

¶23

to be raised by considering the specific contentions introduced by the plaintiff in the amended plaint.

¶24

Per contra, Shri V.R. Choudhari, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the defendant no.1 had knowledge about the notice dated 07.11.2007 and despite this since he failed to raise any counter claim alongwith the written statement, the amendment application deserved to be rejected. He also submitted that by way of proposed amendment, the defendant no.1 is attempting to introduce contradictory pleas and changing the nature of pleadings which cannot be permitted.

¶25

While considering the rival contentions, it has to be seen that undisputedly the application for amendment of the written statement, Exhibit 120, is filed by the defendant no.1 in consequence to the amendment made by the plaintiff. It has to be noted that the plaintiff has amended the plaint and taken a stand that the tenancy of the defendant no.1 stood terminated in view of the notice dated 07.11.2007 and this stand was not taken by the plaintiff in the original plaint. In view of this stand of the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 has filed the application for amendment to put forth the defence with respect to the notice dated 07.11.2007 and also raised a counter claim raising challenge to the contentions about termination of tenancy. A perusal of the application for amendment shows that the defendant no.1 has specifically mentioned these reasons in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the application and even proposed amendment mentions challenge to the notice dated 07.11.2007. As such,

¶26

1704WP2501-26.odt 4 Judgment

¶27

it is apparent that the proposed amendment is filed by the defendant no.1 to counter the case of the plaintiff which is put forth by him only through amendment to the plaint and therefore the contentions of the respondents about delayed raising of counter claim are not acceptable.

¶28

It is fruitful to refer the position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Kalra (supra) with respect to filing counter claim wherein it is observed that there cannot be a rigid and hypertechnical approach while allowing the defendant to file the counter claim. It is beneficial to refer paragraphs 34 and 57 from the said judgment, which are reproduced below:-

¶29

“34. In addition to this, it is also possible to introduce a belated counterclaim by way of an amendment to the original written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. However, as is the case with Order 8 Rule 9, the filing of such a counterclaim through an amended written statement is subject to the leave of the court, and not accorded to the defendant as a matter of right.

¶30

At the same time, in exceptional circumstances, to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and a situation of effective re-trial, the court may entertain a counterclaim even after the framing of issues, so long as the court has not started recording the evidence. This is because there is no significant development in the legal proceedings during the Intervening period between framing of issues and commencement of recording of evidence. If a counterclaim is brought during such period, a new issue can still be framed by the court, if needed, and evidence can be recorded accordingly, without seriously prejudicing the rights of either party to the suit.”

¶31

1704WP2501-26.odt 5 Judgment

¶32

Applying this legal position to the instant matter, it has to be noted that the counter claim sought to be filed after the evidence was started needs to be entertained in view of accrual of cause of action based on the amended plaint. As such, only because the application for amendment to written statement came to be filed after evidence was started, the same ought not to have been rejected.

¶33

The position of law is fairly settled that an application for consequential amendment has to be liberally allowed. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court has rejected the application by mainly considering that the defendant no.1 has attempted to introduce new pleadings by way of amendment and therefore the trial Court has observed that the defence sought to be raised cannot co-exist with the earlier defence in the written statement.

¶34

After giving anxious consideration to the application for amendment of written statement and the position of law in this regard, it is clear that the trial Court has misdirected itself in considering the application for consequential amendment by focusing mainly on one aspect about introduction of new pleas in the written statement. In my opinion, the trial Court has failed to consider that the application was basically an application by way of consequential amendment and the same ought to have been considered in the background of the amended plaint. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the consequential application for amendment of the written statement warrants interference.

¶35

1704WP2501-26.odt

¶36

6 Judgment

¶37

In view of abovementioned factual and legal aspects, the following order is passed:-

¶38

I. The writ petition is allowed.

¶39

II. The order dated 15.01.2026 passed by the trial Court below application at Exhibit 120 in Special Civil Suit no.20 of 2023 is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the defendant no.1 for amendment at Exhibit 120 is allowed.

¶40

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶41

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶42

APTE

¶43

Signed by: Apte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/04/2026 10:37:22

Haji Ahemed Abdulla Halari v. Pramod Vasant Banginwar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haji Ahemed Abdulla Halari v. Pramod Vasant Banginwar 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shri Vitthal Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Sawargaon, Narkhed, Thr. President and Another vs Pitambar Narayan Gaidhane and Another

Sau. Nirupa W/O Jitendra Borkar vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secy., Department of Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors.

Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Nandgaon Khandeshwar, Thr. Secretary vs the Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune and Others

Smt. Leeladevi Ratankumar Saboo and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Revenue and Forest Dept., Govt. of Maha., Mumbai and Ors.

Sau. Nalini W/O Makhram Rathod vs the Collector, Akola and Others

Shri. Ashok Gulabchand Chandak vs Smt. Asha Ambarrao Selokar