1 921-wp-13947-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13947 OF 2024 Popat Murlidhar Chavan Died Through Lrs Hemlata Popat Chavan And Others VERSUS Chandgdeo Chandrabhan Chavan Died Through Lrs 2 To 4 And Others ... Mr. S. Y. Mahajan, Advocate for the Petitioners Ms. Aishwarya N. Tanpure h/f Mr. R. V. Gore, Advocate for Respondent nos.3 and 4 ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2026 P.C. :- . Petitioners’ Regular Civil Suit No.209 of 2001 filed against the present respondents for partition and injunction came to be dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.2014. 2. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the First Appellate Court i.e. the Court of learned District Judge, Ahmednagar, now Kopargaon. In the appeal, an application at Exhibit-26 came to be filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking a short amendment of prayer for declaration as to the title to the extent of 5 Acres, 36 R located in gut no.308 and also for possession of the said partition. 2026:BHC-AUG:38183 2 921-wp-13947-2024 3. It is contended by learned Advocate for the petitioners that the Trial Court rendered its findings in respect of such contention; however, for want of any express prayer, the suit came to be dismissed. Accordingly, the application came to be filed in the appellate proceedings. The said application at Exhibit-26 was turned down by learned District Judge-1, Kopargaon vide order dated 30.07.2024. 4. Mr. S. Y. Mahajan, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the amendment would neither change the nature of suit nor the suit needs to be remanded for any purpose if the amendment is allowed. His contention is that in fact if the said prayer is not permitted, again the parties will have to engage themselves in next round of litigation starting from the Trial Court. He fairly accepts that the suit was of 2001. The Regular Civil Appeal is of 2014. However, the application is filed in the year 2021. 5. He further submits that the petitioners are ready to compensate the respondents and also undertake not to pray before the Appellate Court for remand of the suit or for adducing any evidence if the amendment is allowed. He also undertakes that he will work out the appeal only on the basis 3 921-wp-13947-2024 of material and evidence before the Appellate Court and shall not take undue advantage of the liberty, if granted by this Court. 6. Ms. Aishwarya N. Tanpure h/f Mr. R. V. Gore, learned Advocate for the respondent nos.3 and 4 strongly objects the prayer. She would submit that the facts speak itself. The suit is of 2001. The appeal is of 2004 and the proposed amendment is sought in the year 2021. Request for the amendment first time raised in the year 2021 is stretched by the petitioner till 2026. She would submit that by the amendment, the petitioners cannot be allowed to fill up such lacuna in the plaint which has closed the doors for the petitioners for the substantial relief which they could have raised in the suit itself. 7. It is alternatively submitted by Ms. Aishwarya N. Tanpure, learned Advocate that if this Court allows the Writ Petition, the petitioners be directed to proceed with the appeal and to conclude it within a stipulated time. She further submits that in no case, the petitioners shall be allowed to pray to the Appellate Court for remand of the suit. Moreover, it is also a contention of learned Advocate for the respondent 4 921-wp-13947-2024 that the petitioners must argue their appeal on the basis of material which is placed before the Appellate Court. 8. I have heard both learned Advocates extensively. It is true that suit is of 2001 which is dismissed long back and appeal is filed in the year 2014. The application is filed at very belated stage i.e. in the year 2021. Recitals of the findings rendered by the Trial Court prima facie show that the Trial Court has in fact discussed the issue for which the petitioner is seeking amendment in the suit. As such, there is no necessity for adducing any more evidence or any material in the pending appellate proceeding. 9. I find substance in the submissions made by learned Advocate for the petitioners that if this declaratory relief is not adjudicated in the pending proceeding, the parties will have to engage themselves in further round of litigation in which the very same material would be under consideration before the Trial Court. There is no point in multiplying the litigation between the same parties and for the same count. In view of this and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition by allowing the petitioners to amend the plaint to limited extent. 5 921-wp-13947-2024 10. Simultaneously, it is directed that the petitioner shall not attempt to adduce any more evidence nor would pray for relegation of the matter to the Trial Court. Considering the delayed period, yet the requirement of law to allow the parties to agitate such issues which would take civil litigation to its logical end, I deem it appropriate to impose some costs on the petitioners for the delayed period and for keeping the respondents engaged in such delayed civil proceedings. Hence, I pass following order: ORDER a. Writ Petition stands allowed. b. The petitioners are allowed to amend the prayer clause to the extent of declaration of 5 Acre 36 R in gut no.308 and possession for such land. c. Learned District Judge, Kopargaon Shall not allow the petitioner to adduce any evidence nor shall entertain prayer for relegation of the litigation to the Trial Court. d. The petitioners shall agitate their appeal only on the basis of the evidence which is before the District Court. e. The respondents are at liberty to oppose the prayer which is sought to be amended by the petitioners in the said petition on every count including limitation, deficiency and absence of pleading etc. 6 921-wp-13947-2024 f. Learned District Judge, Kopargaon shall adjudicate the prayer which the petitioner is permitted to amend on its own merit and on the pleadings and evidence which is already on record. g. The appeal shall be decided within a period of three months from today. h. The petitioners shall not seek a single adjournment to work out the appeal. i. The petitioners shall deposit the costs of Rs.25,000/- in the District Court, Kopargaon and the respondents are permitted to withdraw such costs. j. With these directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026