IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 940 WRIT PETITION NO. 3792 OF 2019 Vijay Narayandas Rizwani VERSUS Roopsingh Indersingh And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Kasliwal Anil H. Advocate for Respondents 2, 5, 6 : Mr. A. A. Mukhedkar Advocate for Respondents No.3 and 4: Mr. M. D. Marwadkar ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. Dated : August 19, 2026 ORAL ORDER : 1. The present Petition takes exception to the orders dated 7th December 2017 and 6th February 2019 passed below Exhibits 363 and 373, respectively, by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, in Regular Civil Suit No.199 of 1989. 2. The Petitioner had initially instituted a suit for perpetual injunction against Respondent Nos.1 and 2, which came to be registered as Regular Civil Suit No.199 of 1989. During the pendency of the said suit, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed an application seeking their impleadment as defendants. The said application came to be allowed. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner/Plaintiff that subsequently, Defendant No.2 executed a gift deed in favour of his sons, who are Respondent Nos.5 and 6. The Petitioner/Plaintiff, therefore, moved an Page 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:37302 940 WP 3792-2019 application seeking impleadment of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as defendants in the said suit. The said application was allowed. 4. However, while carrying out the amendment, inadvertently, the names of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 (Defendant Nos.3 and 4), came to be deleted from the title clause of the plaint and the names of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 came to be incorporated in their place. Having realised the said mistake, the Petitioner/Plaintiff moved an application below Exhibit 363 seeking permission to correct the title clause of the plaint. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 7th December 2017. 5. The Petitioner/Plaintiff thereafter preferred an application for review of the said order below Exhibit 373. The said application also came to be rejected by order dated 6th February 2019. The aforesaid orders are subject matter of challenge in the present Petition. 6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 7th December 2017 would demonstrate that the learned Trial Court rejected the application essentially on the ground that the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate due diligence and that the application was filed Page 2 of 5 940 WP 3792-2019 belatedly, though the Plaintiff was aware of the mistake. 7. The application for review was also rejected for the aforesaid reasons and additionally on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the earlier order. 8. Having perused the impugned order dated 7th December 2017, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the material fact that Respondent Nos.3 and 4 had already been ordered to be joined as Defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the suit and that their names came to be inadvertently deleted from the title clause while carrying out the amendment pursuant to the subsequent order of impleadment of Respondent Nos.5 and 6. 9. The mistake in question is, therefore, essentially a mistake in carrying out the amendment to the title clause of the plaint. Such mistake, particularly when the impleadment of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 as defendants was already ordered, ought not to have resulted in their names being deleted from the proceedings. Page 3 of 5 940 WP 3792-2019 10. In the facts of the present case, the learned Trial Court ought to have permitted correction of the said inadvertent mistake. The impugned order dated 7th December 2017, therefore, cannot be sustained. 11. The application for review below Exhibit 373 was also rejected on technical grounds. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application for review below Exhibit 373 in the interest of justice. 12. In view of the above, the following order is passed : ORDER (I) The orders dated 7th December 2017 and 6th February 2019 passed below Exhibits 363 and 373, respectively, by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, in Regular Civil Suit No.199 of 1989 are quashed and set aside. (ii) The application below Exhibit 363 in Regular Civil Page 4 of 5 940 WP 3792-2019 Suit No.199 of 1989 is allowed. (iii) The Petitioner/Plaintiff is permitted to correct the title clause in the plaint in terms of the prayer made in application below Exhibit 363. (iv) The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) vj gawade/-. Page 5 of 5