7-sr909.wp.4271 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 909 WRIT PETITION NO. 4271 OF 2024 Parvatabai Kondaji Choudhari (Died) Through L.Rs. Parshuram Kondaji Choudhari And Another VERSUS Dnyandeo Chimaji Choudhari And Others ---- Mr.Satyajeet S. Dixit, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.N.Shermale, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr.S.N.Kendre, AGP for respondent nos.2 to 7 ---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2026 ORDER :- Heard both sides. 2. Regular Civil Suit No.660 of 2018 was filed by the present petitioners in the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar against the present respondent. 3. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are owners and possessors of the agricultural land located in gut No.115/2, while on their southern side, defendants own and possess their agricultural land identified as gut no.115/1. The description of the suit property is mentioned in paragraph 1 of Exhibit 1 wherein to the southern side of the plaintiff’s property, the land of respondent no.1 is located at gut no.115/1. The 2026:BHC-AUG:38777 2 7-sr909.wp defendants caused their appearance in the suit and resisted the application by filing their respective written statements. Before the trial could commence, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 came to be filed by the plaintiffs seeking amendment in the plaint. The plaint is sought to be amended on two counts: firstly during pendency of the suit the plaintiff no.1’s mother died and hence, the remaining brother is sought to be added in the plaint. It is inter alia sought to be brought on record that there is partition between the two brothers. The second amendment is sought to be placed on record for change in the boundaries of suit property. 4. The text of the application Exh.38 shows that by the partition it is shown that plaintiff no.1 is on the northern side of the suit property while plaintiff no.2 is sought to be shown on the southern side of the property. For the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the plaintiff no.2 is on southern side of their property, in any condition such amended description of the suit property will be in contravention of the description of the suit property mentioned in paragraph 1 of Exh.1. Obviously, the defendants have raised their defence taking to the description of the suit property. 3 7-sr909.wp 5. The trial court has rightly observed that the factum of partition between the two brothers i.e. plaintiff no.1A and plaintiff no.2 has no relevance with the controversy in the suit. 6. Present suit is filed mainly for fixation of the boundaries and recovery of possession if encroachment is found at the behest of the defendants. Hence, I agree with the view taken by learned Judge of the trial court that amendment sought to be brought on record about the factum of partition is not relevant to resolve the controversy between the parties. 7. Secondly, so far as the description of the suit property is concerned, considering the description of property given in the suit and the written statement of the defendants whereby they had disputed everything including the description in the suit property, the amendment cannot be said to be permissible and hence learned Judge of the trial court has rightly discarded the same. 8. Mr.Dixit, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Francisco Patrico Rodrigues and anr. Vs. Aleixo Cipriano Albuquerque and others, 2012(1) Mh.L.J. 603. I have cautiously gone through the said judgment. With due respect, I record that the facts in the 4 7-sr909.wp said case are quite different from the facts in the present case. It is true that, in that case also, there were subsequent events; however, in the present case, the subsequent event is sought to be relied upon for the purpose of correcting the description of the boundary. This Court, while deciding the cited case, observed in paragraph 6 that the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner was acceptable, as the proposed amendment sought to introduce certain subsequent events which were not in dispute, while the remaining part of the proposed amendment was merely clarificatory in nature. Such is not the case with the present petitioner. 9. In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] ……….. KBP