Writ Petition No.5626/2015 :: 1 :: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5626 OF 2015 Bhimrao s/o Sambhaji Kadam … PETITIONER VERSUS Mahadev s/o Fakira Gore & ors. … RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. K.R. Doke, Advocate for petitioner Mr. V.S. Undre, Advocate for R.No.1, 3 to 5 ....… CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner (original plaintiff) is before this Court, raising an exception to the order dated 20/1/2015 rendered by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhoom, below Exh.60 in Regular Civil Suit No.227/2008, rejecting the application for amendment filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. The suit was presented for declaration and injunction. It is thereafter a request was made by way of application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code to restrict the claim to the 2026:BHC-AUG:26194 Writ Petition No.5626/2015 :: 2 :: extent of equal share in the water from the well. The same is rejected, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the proposed amendment does not alter the nature of the suit as well as the claim is also not barred by Law of Limitation and as such, no prejudice would have been caused to the respondent if the amendment is allowed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for petitioner has reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rehman & anr. Vs. Mohd. Ruldu & ors. [ 2012 AIR SCW 5419 ] and submits that the amendment deserves to be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 3 to 5 has supported the impugned order, submitting that, since the sale deed is prior in time, as such, in absence of due diligence on the part of the petitioner, the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and perusal of the material on record, prima facie, it is apparent that, by virtue of proposed amendment, the petitioner is rather restricting his claim to the extent of equal share in the water in well Writ Petition No.5626/2015 :: 3 :: in view of the fact that the sale deed is already executed. Nonetheless, the proposed amendment does not alter the nature of the suit. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 3 to 5 that no diligence has been adhered by the plaintiff while seeking the amendment does not warrant consideration in absence of proved prejudice. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20/1/2015 rendered by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhoom, below Exh.60 in Regular Civil Suit No.227/2008 is quashed and set aside. The application (Exh.60) filed by the petitioner for amendment is allowed. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) fmp/-