1 WP 12264-2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12264 OF 2019 SHETIBA GURAPPA DANDGULE AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHAKUNTALABAI HANMANT CHOUGHULE AND OTHERS … Ms. Medha P. Patel h/f. Mr. Milind Patil – Advocate for Petitioners Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar – Advocate for Respondent No.2 … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 18.03.2026 O R D E R : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2019 passed below Exhibit 149 in Regular Civil Suit No.237 of 2011 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ausa, District Latur, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/original plaintiffs for amendment of plaint came to be rejected. 3. Learned Counsel, Ms. Medha P. Patel holding for Mr. Milind Patil, for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners had filed Regular Civil Suit No.237 of 2011 for conveyance in respect of the suit property bearing Survey No.142/B/2 admeasuring 22 Acres 8 Gunthas, to the 2026:BHC-AUG:12309 2 WP 12264-2019.odt extent of 4 acres land situated at village Ausa. She submits that the petitioners had initially filed an application seeking injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property however, the same came to be rejected, which was also confirmed by order dated 07.07.2012 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.5802 of 2012. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that during the pendency of the said proceedings, respondent No.2 alienated the suit land. The said writ petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioners to add the purchaser as party defendant. Accordingly, the purchaser was impleaded as defendant No.3. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application at Exhibit 149 seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating paragraph 9A and by adding a prayer for declaration that the sale-deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the petitioners/plaintiffs. She submits that the said amendment is based on subsequent events and is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute. It is contended that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit, and therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the same. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners are required to prove their original case as pleaded and, though the purchaser has been added as a party 3 WP 12264-2019.odt defendant, such amendment seeking declaration cannot be permitted at this stage. He submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, it is not in dispute that defendant No.2 has executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No.3 during the pendency of the suit. Pursuant thereto, the purchaser has been impleaded as defendant No.3. In that view of the matter, the petitioners seek to bring on record the subsequent event and also seek a declaration that the sale-deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on them. In my considered opinion, such an amendment is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties. The proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit. On the contrary, it is based on subsequent developments and would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. No prejudice would be caused to the defendants, as they would get an opportunity to contest the amended pleadings. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the present petition by setting aside the order under challenge. 7. The Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 27.02.2019 passed below Exhibit 149 in Regular Civil Suit No.237 of 2011 by the learned 4 WP 12264-2019.odt Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ausa, District Latur, is quashed and set aside subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- (rupees Five Thousands only). 8. The application at Exhibit 149 stands allowed, subject to payment of aforesaid costs to the Advocate’s Bar Association Library, Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad, within a period of three (3) weeks from today. 9. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE Pooja Kale/