Dismissed¶24

Ganesh Vitthal Karale and Another v. Vitthal Hiraman Karale and Others

Bombay HC17 Mar 2026WP/2850/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ganesh Vitthal Karale v. Vitthal Hiraman Karale; Bombay HC Aurangabad Bench; WRIT PETITION NO.2850 OF 2026; amendment of plaint; addition of parties (sisters of defendant no.1); partition suit R.C.S. No.174 of 2024; Exhibit-219; Order 6 Rule 17 due-diligence proviso; belated amendment after framing of issues, trial and recording of evidence; suit posted for final arguments; no jurisdictional error; writ petition rejected 17.03.2026; S. G. Chapalgaonkar J.

What did the court decide?

The Trial Court rightly observed that the suit was instituted by the petitioners claiming right in property exclusively allotted to Vitthal in the partition between him and his brother. ¶18

Ganesh Vitthal Karale and Another vs Vitthal Hiraman Karale and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether addition of the sisters of defendant no.1 (Vitthal) as parties to the partition suit was necessary for final adjudication, and whether the belated amendment application complied with the due-diligence proviso under Order 6 Rule 17. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The Trial Court rightly observed that the suit was instituted by the petitioners claiming right in property exclusively allotted to Vitthal in the partition between him and his brother.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Since the disputed property was exclusively owned by Vitthal and his sons claim partition therein, addition of the sisters of Vitthal would not be relevant.

¶21

Key takeaways

All relevant facts were within the plaintiffs' knowledge when the suit was instituted; issues were framed, the matter was put to trial and evidence recorded before the amendment was sought, showing non-compliance with the proviso under Order 6 Rule 17, which requires a party to show due diligence when amendment is sought after commencement of the trial.ratio¶21
There is no explanation as to why the amendment was not brought at an earlier stage of the proceedings.ratio¶22
This Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order requiring interference in writ jurisdiction.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), S.G. Chapalgaonkar J. - Writ Petition No.2850 of 2026 (decided 17.03.2026): Petitioners (plaintiffs, sons of Vitthal) in partition suit R.C.S. No.174 of 2024 sought amendment of the plaint below Exhibit-219 to add the sisters of defendant no.1 Vitthal, pleading revenue-record entries naming them. The application was moved only after issues were framed, the trial was completed and evidence recorded, with the suit posted for final arguments. The Trial Court rejected it, observing that the property had been exclusively allotted to Vitthal in his partition with his brother, making the sisters' addition unnecessary, and that the amendment was belated. Upholding this, the High Court held that addition of the sisters was not relevant since the disputed property was exclusively owned by Vitthal; that all facts were within the plaintiffs' knowledge at institution; and that there was non-compliance with the due-diligence proviso under Order 6 Rule 17, with no explanation for the delay. Finding no jurisdictional error warranting writ interference, the Court rejected the writ petition.

¶1

wp 2850.26.odt

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:12486

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

928 WRIT PETITION NO.2850 OF 2026

¶6

Ganesh Vitthal Karale And Another VERSUS

¶7

Vitthal Hiraman Karale And Others

¶8

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar Advocate for Respondents 1,5 : Mr. D.R. Jaybhar Advocate for respondent no.6 : Mr. T C Kale

¶9

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : March 17, 2026

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Present petition takes exception to the order dated 13.02.2026 passed below Exhibit-219 in R.C.S. No.174 of 2024, by which application of petitioners/plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint has been rejected.

¶12

Mr. Gangakhedkar, learned advocate appearing for petitioners submits that amendment was sought only for the purpose of adding certain parties, who are sisters of Vitthal i.e. defendant no.1. He would submit that because revenue record in respect of suit properties refers to their names hence their presence for adjudication of suit would be necessary for final adjudication. However, Trial Court declined to accept the prayer of plaintiffs on the ground that such an amendment

¶13

¶14

wp 2850.26.odt

¶15

would not be necessary for final adjudication of dispute and amendment is sought at belated stage i.e. after commencement of the trial.

¶16

Per contra, Mr. Jaybhar, learned advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 and 5 and Mr.Shinde, learned advocate appearing for respondent no.6 vehemently opposed the petition and supports the impugned order.

¶17

Having considered submissions advanced by learned advocate appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that application seeking amendment in plaint and addition of parties has been made by plaintiffs when suit was posted for final arguments. It can be observed that suit is filed for partition and separate possession of suit properties, which were originally owned by Hiraman. In partition by Hiraman suit properties were received by Vitthal. Some of properties were purchased by him and his descendants out of joint properties. In this backdrop, plaintiffs/sons of Vitthal wants addition of sisters of Vitthal as party to the suit under the pretext that revenue record depicts their rights in suit property.

¶18

Trial court has rightly observed that suit is instituted by petitioners claiming right in property exclusively allotted to

¶19

wp 2850.26.odt

¶20

¶21

Vitthal in partition between him and his brother. It is therefore clear that the property in dispute was exclusively owned by Vitthal. His sons are claiming partition in respect of the suit property. In that view of matter, addition of sisters of Vithal would not be relevant. Admittedly, all these facts were within knowledge of plaintiffs when suit was instituted. Thereafter issues were framed, matter was put to trial and after recording of evidence of parties, present application seeking amendment was moved. Apparently, there is non-compliance of proviso under Order 6 Rule 17, which requires party to satisfy due diligence in case of amendment is sought after commencement of the trial.

¶22

In the present case, there is no explanation as to why such amendment was not brought at the earlier stage of the proceeding.

¶23

In that view of the matter, this Court do not find that

¶24

there is any jurisdictional error in the impugned order requiring interference in writ jurisdiction. In result writ petition stands rejected.

¶25

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )

¶26

AAA/-

Ganesh Vitthal Karale and Another v. Vitthal Hiraman Karale and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Vitthal Karale and Another v. Vitthal Hiraman Karale 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

Similar cases

Ganpat Nivruttirao Lagdive vs Ravindra Ganpat Lagdive and Another

Kashinath Dada Darade Died through Lrs Atmaram Kashinath Darade vs SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Legal Officer

Sarjerao Raosaheb Darade vs SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Legal Officer

Shital Balbhim Gaykwad vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raosaheb Namdev Paikrao vs the Divisional Commissioner Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Others

Panditrao Munjajirao Chokhat vs Divisional Joint Registrar Co. Op Societies and Another