Dismissed¶29

Gopal Zaparuzi Ambadkar v. Haribhau Tukaram Umbarkar and Others

Bombay HC20 Jan 2026WP/4442/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition dismissed — recasting/framing of issues — belated application after ~14 years — absence of pleadings in written statement — agreement to sell dated 14.01.1991 'Essar Patra' — alleged consideration Rs.6,20,000/- — no interference with trial Court order — direction for expeditious trial within six months — Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench — Writ Petition No. 4442 of 2025 — Civil Application (CAW) No. 2725 of 2025 — Khubalkar, J. — 11.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief to petitioner; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs; trial Court directed to decide the civil suit expeditiously, preferably within six months; connected civil application disposed of as not pressed. ¶29

Gopal Zaparuzi Ambadkar vs Haribhau Tukaram Umbarkar… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order dated 01.04.2025 rejecting the application for recasting of issues warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The application for recasting of issues filed after about 14 years after the issues were framed, that too without support of any pleadings, cannot be entertained, especially when the evidence of the plaintiffs is already over.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

There are no pleadings at all in the written statement about any payment of consideration of Rs.6,20,000/- by defendant No.2; having regard to the controversy involved in the suit, there is no need to frame the additional issues by recasting the earlier issues.

¶28

Key takeaways

The trial Court gave due consideration to the relevant aspects and passed a well reasoned order warranting no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶29
Considering that the suit is of the year 2010 and the parties are of advanced age, the trial Court is directed to expeditiously decide the civil suit preferably within a period of six months.ratio¶30
Since all respondents appeared through their respective lawyers, the application for permission to serve respondents by paper publication was not pressed and the civil application was disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), per Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J., dismisses a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the trial Court's order dated 01.04.2025 rejecting defendant No.2's application (Exh.60, dated 15.01.2025) for recasting of issues in a 2010 suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed. Issues had been framed on 08.11.2012 on the parties' pleadings; the recasting application was filed after about 14 years, after closure of plaintiffs' evidence, and without support of any pleadings — the written statement contained no plea of payment of consideration of Rs.6,20,000/- under an agreement to sell dated 14.01.1991 styled 'Essar Patra'. Held such a belated, pleading-less application cannot be entertained and no additional issues were required. The trial Court was directed to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months, given the suit's age and the advanced age of the parties. The connected civil application for service by paper publication was not pressed and disposed of.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:4092

¶2

1 / 3 2.caw2725.2025

¶3

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

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 2725 OF 2025 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4442 OF 2025

¶6

Gopal Zaparuzi Ambadkar

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Haribhau Tukaram Umbarkar and Ors.

¶9

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

¶10

Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶11

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶12

Mr. L.H. Kothari, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.P. Kotwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. P.S. Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 6.

¶13

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : 11.03.2026

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since all the respondents have appeared through respective lawyers, this application for permission to serve the respondents by paper publication is not pressed.

¶15

In view of this, the civil application is disposed of.

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO. 4442 OF 2025

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶18

Petitioner’s challenge is to order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for recasting of issues.

¶19

Prity

¶20

2 / 3 2.caw2725.2025

¶21

The petitioner is defendant No.2 in the suit filed by the respondent No.1 seeking declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed.

¶22

In the suit, the defendant No.2 appeared and filed his written statement on 16.06.2010. Thereafter, the trial Court framed the issues on 08.11.2012. After the evidence of plaintiffs was over and at the stage of evidence of the defendants, the defendant No.2 filed an application on 15.01.2025 at Exh.60 seeking recasting of issues to add two issues as mentioned in the said application. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs and it came to be rejected by order dated 01.04.2025, which is subjected to challenge by way of instant petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the defendant No.2 has made a reference about an agreement to sell dated 14.01.1991 under the style ‘Essar Patra’ in the specific pleadings of the written statement and therefore, the issues about said agreement and payment of consideration of Rs.6,20,000/- needs to be framed by recasting the issues.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondents opposed the petition and submitted that there are no pleadings in the written statement about any payment of Rs.6,20,000/- as alleged by the defendant No.2 and the issues already framed on 08.11.2022 are based on the pleadings of the

¶25

Prity

¶26

3 / 3 2.caw2725.2025

¶27

parties. It is submitted that the issues sought to be framed did not arise out of the controversy.

¶28

It has to be seen that the learned trial Court has already framed issues based on the pleadings of the parties. The evidence of the plaintiffs is also over and the application for recasting of issues filed after about 14 years after the issues were framed that too without support of any pleadings cannot be entertained. It has to be noted that there are no pleadings at all in the written statement about any payment of consideration amount of Rs.6,20,000/- by defendant No.2 and as such, having regard to the controversy involved in the suit, there is no need to frame the additional issues by recasting the earlier issues.

¶29

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court has given due consideration to the relevant aspects and passed a well reasoned order warranting no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶30

Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2010 and the parties are of advanced age, the learned trial Court is directed to expeditiously decide the civil suit preferably within a period of six months.

¶31

( Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J. )

¶32

Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Prity Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 11/03/2026 19:37:59

Gopal Zaparuzi Ambadkar v. Haribhau Tukaram Umbarkar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Zaparuzi Ambadkar v. Haribhau Tukaram Umbarkar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

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

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