( 1 ) 14 WP 10794 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 14 WRIT PETITION NO. 10794 OF 2024 SHIVAJI FULCHAND DESHMUKH THROUGH LRS SUMAN YOURAJ DESHMUKH AND OTHERS VERSUS NILABAI ALIAS NILAWATI VITTHALRAV LAVAND DIED THR LRS ANIL VITTHALRAO LAVAND AND OTHERS ... Mr. M. V. Salunke h/f. Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. V. S. Undre, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 (Through V.C.) … CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : 24.08.2026 PER COURT :- . The suit is filed for partition and separate possession. The plaintiff realised that a property which ought to have been the subject matter of the suit remained to be added in the pleadings at Exhibit-1. This was realised after the written statement was filed. Thereafter, an application was filed at the behest of the petitioner at Exhibit-189 to permit the plaintiff to amend the pleadings by incorporating land Gat No.152 in the property description. 2. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 29.11.2022 the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad allowed the application below Exhibit-189 and the plaintiff was permitted to amend the pleadings pursuant to the application. 2026:BHC-AUG:38513 ( 2 ) 14 WP 10794 OF 2024 3. Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned Advocate for the defendant would fairly submit that the order allowing the amendment is not challenged by the petitioners and the same has attained finality. Even today, their grievance is that subsequent to the amendment in the pleadings, the plaintiff filed a new additional affidavit in chief which incorporated the contents about Gat No.152 also. He submits that the pleadings depict that it is not styled as an additional affidavit in chief or supplementary affidavit in chief. He would submit that the plaintiff has incorporated an entirely new affidavit in chief which was in fact already on record and nor was struck down by the Court. 4. Mr. Salunke submits that the plaintiff may be entitled to adduce evidence only to the extent of the amendment granted by the Trial Court. However, under the garb of supplementary or additional examination-in-chief, neither a party/plaintiff is permitted to produce an entirely fresh or new examination-in-chief nor it is justifiable on the part of the learned Judge of the Trial Court to consider such whole new examination-in-chief. Mr. Salunke submits that he has reservations on the observations expressed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court are that there is absolutely no change in the examination-in-chief filed earlier and the fresh examination-in-chief. 5. Mr. Undre, learned Advocate for the respondents/plaintiffs making his submissions through video conferencing submits that the apprehension of the petitioners is not correct. He would submit that the new ( 3 ) 14 WP 10794 OF 2024 examination-in-chief may not be treated as a new examination-in-chief and it be treated only to the extent of such text which is produced before the Court pursuant to the amendment granted by the Court. Mr. Undre further submits that the petitioners are at liberty to cross-examine the plaintiff on any point which is a part of the new examination-in-chief. 6. I heard both the learned Advocates for the respective parties extensively. I perused the papers produced before me. It is not in dispute that the order allowing the amendment for incorporation of the amendment on the application filed below Exhibit-189 is intact even today. The petitioners have neither challenged that order nor intend to challenge that order. The only grievance of the petitioners is in respect of the mode by which the amended pleadings are sought to be proved by the plaintiff. 7. It is trite law that fresh evidence is not at all allowed on the basis of an amendment to the pleadings. I can see that the amendment is allowed by the Court observing that it does not change the nature of the controversy. If so, the plaintiff is at liberty to tender additional examination-in-chief to the extent of the amended portion in the plaint. By allowing the plaintiff to file or by accepting the full examination-in-chief from the plaintiff unnecessarily, this additional round of litigation is created between the parties. I refrain myself from comparing both the examination-in-chief while exercising my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) 14 WP 10794 OF 2024 8. Although such submission is made by the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs, while considering the fair submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by permitting the plaintiffs to file an additional examination-in-chief only to the extent of the amended plaint in the light of the order passed on Exhibit-189. Such additional examination-in-chief shall be in continuation of the examination-in-chief already tendered by the plaintiff. If such additional examination is filed, needless to mention, the defendants are at liberty to cross-examine the plaintiffs on the amended portion. 9. In view of this, the impugned order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the Trial Court under application Exhibit-194 must go. Hence I pass following order : O R D E R I. The Writ Petition is allowed. II. The impugned order dated 14.08.2023 passed below Exhibit-194 in Regular Civil Suit No.20 of 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad is quashed and set aside. III. The examination-in-chief filed by the plaintiffs at Exhibit- 194 stands discarded. The earlier examination-in-chief shall be read and considered by the Trial Court while adjudicating the civil suit on its own merits. The plaintiffs/respondents are ( 5 ) 14 WP 10794 OF 2024 permitted to produce an additional/supplementary examination-in-chief within a period of one month from today. IV. Such additional/supplementary examination-in-chief shall be only to the extent of the amended portion in the Exhibit-1. V. The petitioners/defendants are at liberty to cross examine the plaintiffs. VI. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. 10. This Court is surprised to see that the suit is pending since 2005 and, without there being any prohibition by any order of any Court, the Trial Court has not proceeded with the suit. This Court requests the learned Judge of the Civil Court to send a report to the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court indicating the reasons for the delay and shall ensure that the suit stands disposed of within a period of six months from today. 11. No party shall seek an adjournment on any count unless the adjournment is by consent. However, the outer limit as ordered above shall be binding on the Trial Court. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] PRW