k 1/3 11 wp 1731.20 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1731 OF 2020 Sadanand Arvind Khandagale ....Petitioner V/S Sneha Pramod Mahajan & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Sujay H. Gangal a/w Mr. Harshal N. Mule for the Petitioner. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 20 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1. By this Petition, Petitioner has challenged order dated 27 June 2019 passed by Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Baramati, allowing the Application at Exhibit-31 for amendment of the Plaint. 2. I have heard Mr. Gangal, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Despite being served none has appeared on behalf of the Respondents. 3. Perusal of the Application for amendment at Exhibit-31 would indicate that Plaintiff herself has sought to plead in paragraph 5A that the suit property at serial No.1A which is proposed to be made a subject matter of suit is not sought to be partitioned. Thus, no relief is sought in katkam Page No. 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AS:34404 k 2/3 11 wp 1731.20 as.doc respect of property which is sought to be incorporated in the suit. So far as proposed Defendant Nos.6 and 7 are concerned, Plaintiff herself has made a statement that they need not even appear in the suit. Proposed paragraph 5A sought to be inserted in the Plaint reads thus: "५अ) " दावा कलम १अ मधील मिमळकत सी.स. नं. १४९ हावादी यांना वाटप तूत वाटप मागावयाची नाही तो आहे तसाच एकत्रात ठेवण्यात यावा. त्यामुळे या दाव्यात प्रतितवादी नं. ६ व ७ यांना आवश्यक पक्षकार म्हणून समामिवष्ट के लेले आहे. प्रतितवादी नं. ६ व ७ यांना आवश्यकता वाटल्यास त्यांनी दाव्यात हजर रहावे. त्याचा खच वादीवर पडू नये.” 4. The amendment Application thus does not make out as to how the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties. Without appreciating this position, the Trial Court has proceeded to allow the Application. It was necessary for the Plaintiff to give better particulars of the proposed amendment. The Application at Exhibit-31 lacks any particulars for making out the case for amendment of the Plaint. 5. Impugned order dated 27 June 2019 is accordingly to set aside. Liberty is however granted to the Plaintiff to reapply for amendment by giving better particulars subject to all legal objections that can be raised by the Defendants challenging the proposed amendment. It is clarified that this observation shall not be read as it this Court has permitted Plaintiff to amend the Plaint by filing the fresh Application. In the event fresh Application is made, the Court will take into consideration the stage at which amendment is introduced and the need for amending the suit. katkam Page No. 2 of 3 k 3/3 11 wp 1731.20 as.doc 6. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 3 of 3 Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 20/08/2026 18:29:46