Dismissed¶20

Dr. Suyog S/O Namdeorao Meshram and Anr. v. Sunil S/O Damodhar Dhabekar

Bombay HC20 Jan 2026WP/330/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.), Writ Petition No.330 of 2026, decided 20th January 2026 (neutral citation 2026:BHC-NAG:1081): dismissal of challenge to rejection of amendment of written statement; failure to demonstrate due diligence under proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C.; Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; no perversity found in trial court order; background of rejected Exhibit 41 application for pen drive footage of meeting dated 07.09.2018; Special Civil Suit No.85 of 2019, Bhandara; petitioners were defendants below; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The amendment application did not demonstrate any due diligence on the part of the defendants as required by the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C., and therefore deserved to be rejected. ¶18

Dr. Suyog S/O Namdeorao Meshram and Anr. vs Sunil… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:1081

¶2

1 78. WP 330 of 2026.odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.330 OF 2026

¶5

DR. SUYOG S/O NAMDEORAO MESHRAM AND ANOTHER VERSUS

¶6

SUNIL S/O DAMODHAR DHABEKAR

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Mr. R.D. Dandwate, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶9

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATED : 20^th JANUARY 2026

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.09.2025, passed by 4^th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhandara, at Exhibit 52, in Special Civil Suit No.85 of 2019, rejecting the application for amendment of written statement.

¶13

Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the defendants (petitioners herein) have although incorporated pleadings

¶14

in the written statement, but now at the stage of evidence of the defendants, it was revealed that the details about a meeting, which

¶15

2 78. WP 330 of 2026.odt

¶16

was held on 07.09.2018, are also required to be mentioned by way of proposed amendment. Therefore, the amendment application was filed to clarify the pleadings.

¶17

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial court has considered the fact that an earlier application filed by the defendants vide Exhibit 41, for permission to place on record a pen drive containing footage about the said meeting, was rejected, and therefore, the trial court has observed that the application for amendment is an attempt to introduce the pleadings with respect to the said meeting. After considering the record of the case, the trial court has rejected the application for amendment.

¶18

A perusal of the application for amendment at Exhibit 52, shows that the application does not at all mention anything about due diligence on the part of the defendants. There is nothing in the application to show any reason as to why the pleadings were not incorporated earlier. In view of the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C., the defendants were required to make out a case demonstrating due diligence on their part. In the instant case, the application does not demonstrate any due diligence on the part of the defendants. As such, the application deserves to be rejected. Apart from this, I find no

¶19

3 78. WP 330 of 2026.odt

¶20

perversity with the reasoning of the trial court. In view of this, no indulgence is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶21

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶22

asd

Dr. Suyog S/O Namdeorao Meshram and Anr. v. Sunil S/O Damodhar Dhabekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Suyog S/O Namdeorao Meshram and Anr. v. Sunil S/O Damodhar Dhabekar

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

V.I.D.C. through Its Executive Engineer, Yavatmal Project Constructions Division vs Dadarao Karanji Kumbhare and Others

Smt. Radhika W/O. Anup Gupta vs Anup S/O. Sharadkumar Gupta

Smt. Pratibha Nagorao Ramteke vs President, Dandakaranya Education and Cultural Devpt. Research Institute, Gadchiroli and Ors.

Mazhar S/O Anwar Siddiqui vs Tahsildar, Saoner, Nagpur

Pralhad S/O Mhatarba Zore and Others vs Shankar S/O Shamrao Mehetre

Ravi Balu Dudhe vs Shreyas S/O Ravi Dudhe and Others