Neeta Sawant 19-WP-6622-2022.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6622 OF 2022 Mrs. Shobha Babu Chavan (since deceased through LRs) …..PETITIONERS : VERSUS : Pravinchandra Dahyabhai & Ors. ….RESPONDENTS Mr. Jagdish S. Hegde, for the Petitioner. Ms. Anjali N. Helekar with Mr. S.A. Abhyankar through V.C.) and Ms. Anu C. Kaladharan, for the Respondent. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 20 FEBRUARY, 2026. P.C. : 1) The petition challenges order dated 4 March 2022 passed by the Learned Judge City Civil Court rejecting Chamber Summons No.1379 of 2021 Aled by the Petitioner-PlaintiB seeking amendment of plaint. 2) I have heard Mr. Hegde, the learned counsel appearing the Petitioners and Ms. Helekar, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.16. 3) It appears that Original PlaintiB and Respondent No.16 Aled cross Suit against each other claiming possession in respect of the suit property. Though both the suits proceeded together and would have been ordinarily decided together, it appears that Original PlaintiB was not diligent in prosecuting her suit on account of which the Suit Aled by _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 1 OF 3 20 FEBRUARY 2026 Neeta Sawant 19-WP-6622-2022.docx Defendant No.16 came to be decided earlier and was decreed vide judgment and order dated 7 March 2018. Defendant No.16 thus succeeded in securing injunction against the PlaintiB in respect of the suit property. The decree in S.C. Suit No. 1360 of 20111 has attained Anality on account of order passed in First Appeal No. 321 of 2022 by this Court on 9 January 2025. 4) PlaintiB’s S.C. Suit No. 1242 of 2011 is Aled with a prayer for a negative declaration against the Defendants and for injunction. After the decree of S.C. Suit No. 1360 of 2011 on 7 March 2018, PlaintiBs Aled application for amendment of the plaint for seeking restoration of possession of the suit premises. Perusal of the Schedule of amendment would indicate that PlaintiBs have sought to add a prayer for restoration of possession by relying on provisions of Section 6 of the SpeciAc Reliefs Act, 1963. In my view, the proposed amendment is clearly barred by limitation since in S.C. Suit No. 1360 of 2011, it is now well settled that the PlaintiBs therein were in possession of the suit property since 1982. Therefore, there is no question of forcible dispossession of the PlaintiBs herein during 6 months of Aling of amendment application. 5) Mr. Hegde attempts to salvage the situation by contending that what is decreed in S.C. Suit No. 1360 of 2011 is mere injunction based on factum of possession and the Petitioners are entitled to secure possession of the suit property based on title. However, there is no prayer in the Suit seeking declaration of title in respect of title of the suit property in the name of the PlaintiBs. _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 2 OF 3 20 FEBRUARY 2026 Neeta Sawant 19-WP-6622-2022.docx 6) In my view therefore, no serious error can be traced in the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application for amendment. The Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. 7) At this stage, Mr. Hegde seeks leave to Ale another application for amendment. Ms. Helekar, opposes the prayer. In my view, if a fresh application for amendment is Aled, the same would be decided on its merits without being inGuenced by the observations made in the order. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 3 OF 3 20 FEBRUARY 2026 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.02.21 16:33:15 +0530