Writ Petition No.175/2015 :: 1 :: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.175 OF 2015 Magbool Bakshu Inamdar … PETITIONER VERSUS Janabai Nanabhau Khodade & ors. … RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for R.No.1, 2, 4 & 5 ....… CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner assails the order dated 20/12/2014, rendered by the Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parner below Exh.57 in Regular Civil Suit No.27/2002. 2. The petitioner, who entered into an agreement to purchase the property to the extent of 4 Hectors 93 R by the sale deed in the year 1978. It is thereafter the wife of the vendor of the petitioner presented Regular Civil Suit No.49/1978, claiming that the sale deed effected by the vendor of the petitioner is null and 2026:BHC-AUG:35035 Writ Petition No.175/2015 :: 2 :: void. The suit was partly allowed by judgment and decree dated 30/3/1996 with a declaration that the sale deed is null and void to the extent of the share of the plaintiff. However, it was held to be valid to the extent of share of the vendor i.e. defendant No.2 in the suit i.e. Mahipati. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner presented Regular Civil appeal No.238/1996, which came to be partly allowed, granting liberty to the petitioner to present fresh suit for general partition in respect of the properties of the vendor and stayed the execution of judgment and decree passed in a suit presented by the wife of the vendor. Consequent to the said liberty the petitioner presented Regular Civil Suit No.27/2002, claiming partition and separate possession of the property belonging to the Joint Hindu Family of Mahipati. 4. The respondent herein resisted the suit. Upon completion of pleadings, issues were framed. The parties to the suit also adduced the evidence. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the petitioner, upon coming to know that the property bearing Gat No.93, situated at village Bahirobachiwadi, bearing Gat No.93 is not included, as such, sought inclusion of the same by presenting an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Writ Petition No.175/2015 :: 3 :: Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court rejected the same, holding that it is at belated stage, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 5. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Trial Court has committed an error while rejecting the application seeking amendment same does not change the nature of the suit nor it cause prejudice to the defendants. Immediately upon coming to know in relation to the left out property, the amendment is sought. The same essentially ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729]. 6. Per contra, Mr. Jadhavar, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order, submitting that the application is presented at belated stage and as such, it is hit by proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the litigating sides Writ Petition No.175/2015 :: 4 :: and perusal of the material on record, it is settled principle that, generally all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy between litigating parties ought to be allowed, provided it does not cause prejudice to other side. 8. The nature of the amendment which seeks inclusion of the property belonging to the Joint Family, would certainly avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings, given the claim of the petitioner against the vendor is to the extent of 4 Hectors 93 R area of the sale deed in his favour by his vendor Mahipati. 9. The proposed amendment, in any case, does not prejudice seek withdrawal of any admission made by the party or the claim can be regarded as time barred. Thus, considering the fact that the prayer for amendment generally is required to be allowed, if it does not change the nature of the suit or prejudice the defence of the defendant. 10. The Court ought to avoid hyper-technical approach and instead adopt a liberal approach in matters of amendment. The proposed amendment would enable the Court to consider the issue in its entirety and would further avoid multiplicity of litigation. Writ Petition No.175/2015 :: 5 :: 11. In that view of the matter, the order rendered by the Trial Court while rejecting the application deserves to be regarded as unsustainable. As such, same deserves to be quashed and set aside and resultantly, the application presented by the petitioner below Exh.57 deserves to be allowed. 12. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 20/12/2014, rendered by the Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parner below Exh.57 in Regular Civil Suit No.27/2002 is quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the application Exh.-57 is allowed. 13. Considering that the suit is of the year 2002, the concerned Court is requested to make an endeavour to conclude the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from today. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) fmp/-