Virendra C. Doshi and Anr. vs Jayesh Chunilal Doshi and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Virendra C. Doshi and Anr. vs Jayesh Chunilal Doshi and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order quashed and set aside with the consent of the parties; Chamber Summons No. 2123 of 2025 allowed only to the extent of paragraph 1 and the underlined portion of paragraph 2; Plaintiff directed to carry out the necessary amendment within one week.

Issue for consideration

Whether, at the fag end of the trial after oral arguments and written submissions, the learned Judge, City Civil Court could permit the Plaintiff to carry out the remaining scheduled amendments and implead the legal representatives of deceased Defendant No.1 already on record as party-Defendants in their individual right. +1 more

Court's answer

At the fag end of the trial, the learned Judge, City Civil Court could not have permitted the Plaintiff to carry out the rest of the amendments in terms of the Schedule.

Ratio / Principle

The order permitting the amendment could be sustained only to the extent it sought to implead proposed Defendant No. 1(o) as party-Defendant, being the legal representative of one of the sisters of the Plaintiff and daughter of the deceased Defendant No.1, on the premise that all persons entitled to a share in the subject property should be impleaded in the event the Plaintiff succeeds and prayer clause (a) of the suit is granted.

Key takeaways

It is settled law that legal representatives brought on record are entitled to take the defences appropriate to their character as legal representatives; accordingly, the parties already impleaded as Defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(o) as legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No.1 could not be directed to be impleaded as party-Defendants in their individual right.ratio¶29
Since the trial is on the verge of conclusion and arguments are advanced, with the consent of the parties the impugned order stands quashed and set aside, and the Chamber Summons is allowed only to the extent of paragraph 1 and the underlined portion of paragraph 2 recording that Defendant No.1(o) is the sole legal heir of the deceased Mrs. Madhukanta Jamnadas Udani.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.) disposed of a writ petition challenging an order dated 2nd February 2026 of the learned Judge, City Civil Court, allowing Chamber Summons No. 2123 of 2025 in S.C. Suit No. 2871 of 2014 at the conclusion of the trial, after oral arguments and written submissions. The Court sustained the amendment only to the extent of impleading proposed Defendant No. 1(o) (Ashit Jamnadas Udani) as the legal representative of one of the sisters of the Plaintiff and daughter of deceased Defendant No.1, on the premise that all persons entitled to a share in the subject property be on record if the Plaintiff succeeds and prayer clause (a) is granted. It held that at the fag end of the trial the learned Judge could not have permitted the Plaintiff to carry out the rest of the scheduled amendments, nor direct that parties already impleaded as Defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(o) as legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No.1 be impleaded in their individual right, since legal representatives brought on record are entitled to take defences appropriate to their character as legal representatives. With the parties' consent, the impugned order was quashed and set aside and the Chamber Summons allowed only for paragraph 1 and the underlined portion of paragraph 2; the Plaintiff was to carry out the amendment within one week.

904-WP-4198-2026.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4198 OF 2026

Virendra C Doshi and Anr Versus

..Petitioners

Jayesh Chunilal Doshi and Ors …Respondents

Adv Prachi Khandge, with Sejal Singh and P Patel, i/b Bhutekar and Associates, for the Petitioners.

Mr. Satyavan N Vaishnav, with Nupur J Mukherjee, i/b M/s N.N. Vaishnawa and Co, for Respondent No.1.

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 9^th APRIL 2026

ORAL ORDER:

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.04.11 09:43:20 +0530

The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 2^nd February 2026, whereby the learned Judge, City Civil Court was persuaded to allow the Chamber Summons No. 2123 of 2025 in S.C. Suit No. 2871 of 2014, at the conclusion of the trial, nay, after the parties had advanced oral arguments and tendered written submissions as well.

By the proposed amendment, the Respondent-Plaintiff professed

to bring on record the fact that the proposed Defendant 1(o), Ashit Jamnadas Udani, is the sole legal heir of Mrs. Madhukanta Jamnadas

1/3

ARS

904-WP-4198-2026.DOC

udani, who is one of the legal heirs of the deceased Defendant No.1, Kalavanti Chunilal Doshi and late Mr. Chunilal Doshi.

By the impugned order, the learned Judge, City Civil Court was persuaded to allow the Chamber Summons, and also directed the Plaintiff to add Defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(n) as original Defendant Nos. 3 to 16 and proposed Defendant No. 1(o) as mentioned in the schedule as Defendant No. 17 to the suit.

To the extent the proposed Defendant No. 1(o) was sought to be impleaded as party-Defendant being the legal representative of one of the sisters of the Plaintiff and daughter of the deceased Defendant No.1, the order permitting the amendment could be sustained on the premise

that it would be necessary to implead all the persons who may be entitled to a share in the subject property, in the event the Plaintiff succeeds in the suit, and the prayer in prayer clause (a) of the suit is granted.

However, at the fag end of the trial, the learned Judge, City Civil Court could not have permitted the Plaintiff to carry out rest of the amendments in terms of the Schedule, and further direct that the parties, who were already impleded as Defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(o) as the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No.1, be impleaded as party-Defendants in their individual right. It is settled law that, if the

2/3

ARS

904-WP-4198-2026.DOC

legal representatives are brought on record, they are entitled to take the defences appropriate to their character as legal representatives.

Since the trial is on the verge of conclusion and arguments are also advanced, with the consent of the parties, the impugned order stands quashed and set aside, and the Chamber Summons is allowed only to the extent of the paragraph 1 and the underlined portion in

paragraph 2 which reads as under:

“2. … … …

The Defendant No.1(o) is a sole legal heir of the deceased Mrs. Madhukanta Jamnadas Udani, who is one of the legal heir of the Deceased Mr. Chunilal Doshi and original Defendant No. 1.

… … ...”

The Plaintiff shall carry out the necessary amendment in terms of the aforesaid order within a period of one week.

Petition disposed.

3/3

ARS