27 WP No.11702.2015 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11702 OF 2015 MUDRIKABAI PANDHARINATH KENDRE VERSUS RAMAKANT SHRIPADRAO KULKARNI AND OTHERS *** Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv B. Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Shrutika Nirhali h/f Mr. Prashant R. Nangare *** CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. Date : 22nd July, 2026 ORDER :- 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.04.2015 rendered by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Udgir in Special Civil Suit No. 8 of 2013 below Exh. 138, rejecting the application presented by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”). 2. The Respondents No. 1 to 3 (Original Plaintiffs) instituted Special Civil Suit No. 8 of 2013 seeking a decree for declaration and injunction. The suit was contested by the present Petitioner (Original Defendant No. 2), by presenting written statement raising counter-claim. During the pendency of the proceedings, the learned Trial Court acceded to a request made by 2026:BHC-AUG:30960 27 WP No.11702.2015 -2- the Plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, permitting to amend and correct the areas of the suit properties. Consequent to this alteration of the plaint, the Petitioner preferred an application seeking an amendment to written statement to align defense with the amendment carried out by the Plaintiffs in the plaint. The learned Trial Court, however, rejected the Petitioner's application. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the Petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Trial Court permitted plaintiff to amend the plaint vide order dated 06.08.2014, a corresponding right accrued in favour of the petitioner to carry out a consequential amendment. As such, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to allow the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The learned counsel further submitted that the Trial Court committed a error while rejecting the application. The impugned order has caused prejudice to the petitioner by restricting right to meet the amended case of the plaintiffs. Hence, prayed to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 supports the order under challenge, submitting that the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge requires no interference. It is 27 WP No.11702.2015 -3- further submitted that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any illegality in the impugned order and consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is prayed to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the litigating sides and perusing the material on record, admittedly, the amendment application presented by the plaintiffs, which was allowed to by the Trial Court, was confined to correcting the area of suit property. In the present case, the application presented by the petitioner indicates that the proposed amendment travel beyond the scope of amendment allowed to the plaintiffs. The petitioner has sought to incorporate fresh pleas that does not have bearing in relation to amendment in plaint. 6. The Trial Court, therefore, rightly appreciated this distinction and refused to exercise its discretion while rejecting the application presented by the petitioner. Consequently, I find no illegality in the order under challenge that would warrant interference. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition sans merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) Omkar Joshi