WP 11868/25 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 926 WRIT PETITION NO. 11868 OF 2025 ASHOK SHIVAJI JADHAV VERSUS SHANKUNTALA KESHAV PAWAR AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant Baburao Choudhari ... CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Dated : September 30, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.8.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Washi below Exh. 42 in R.C.S. No. 530/2023 by which the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent seeking amendment to the plaint is allowed. Undisputedly the trial has not yet commenced and the written statement is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of making amendment in plaint, the plaintiff is raising inconsistent plea to the original pleading and that admission made in the plaint is sought to be withdrawn. He points out para No. 4 of the original plaint, which is as under :- “4½ gs dh] xzke iapk;r ?kj ua- 1226 IykWV ua- 9 T;kps {ks= iqoZ if”pe 9 eh x n-m- 28 eh gk IykWV izfroknh ua- 3 us oknhdMwu fn- 29@5@2015 jksth [kjsnh[kr ua- 584@2015 us [kjsnh ?ksryk- lnj 9 eh- x 28 eh-pk IykWV ua- 9 oknhus izfroknh ua- 3 P;k dCtkr fnyk-” In contradistinction, the learned counsel points out para No. 7-A of the proposed amended plaint, which is as under :- “7@v½ gs dh] oknhus frP;k ekydhP;k l-ua- 96@c e/khy IykWV ua- 9 {ks= 9 x 28 eh- izfroknh ua- 3 yk fodzh dsys gksrs- ijarw lnj {ks=kkps [kjsnh[kr >kys ukgh- Eg.kwu izfroknh ua- 3 us rRdkyhu xzkelsodk”kh 2025:BHC-AUG:27457 WP 11868/25 2 laxuer d:u ?kj ua- 1236 {ks= 9 x 28 eh- ph pqdhph uksan xzke iapk;r jsdkWMZyk oknhps ukos dsyh o ?kj ua- 1236 ps [kksVs [kjsnh[kr ua- 584@2015 izfroknh ua- 3 us d:u ?ksrys- okLrohd ikgrk ?kj ua- 1236 gk oknhP;k ekydhpk ulqu ek- eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh] ft-i- mLekukckn ekQZr oSn~;fd; vf/kdkjh izkFkfed vkjksX; dsanz ikjxkao ;kaps ukaos vkgs- izfroknh ua- 3 us ?kj ua-1236@9 ps [kksVs [kjsnh[kr oknhdMwu d:u ?ksrys o R;kus lnj [kjsnh[krkuqlkj xzke iapk;r ?kj ua- 1246 yk pqdhph uksan d:u ?ksryh- oknhus izfroknh ua- 3 yk ?kj ua- 1236@9 fdaok 1246 fodzhp dsysyk ukgh- izfroknh ua- 3 oknhP;k ekydhP;k l-ua- 96@c e/khy {ks=kkr csdk;nsf”kj cka/kdke djhr vkgs- Eg.kwu izfroknh ua- 3 us lnj csdk;nsf”kj cka/kdke Lo[kpkZus dk<qu ?ks.ks t:jh vkgs- ” 4. The learned counsel therefore submits that this is inconsistent plea wherein earlier admission made in para 4 of the original plaint that plot was sold by the plaintiff to defendant No. 3 by the sale deed is sought to be withdrawn by making amendment and adding para 7-A in the plaint it was submitted that plot was sold, however, the sale deed was not executed and accordingly certain steps are taken by the plaintiff. 5. Having considered the above submissions and perused the record produced, it appears that the petitioner/defendant can raise all these contentions in his written statement by replying to the above amendment of plaintiff. As regards principle of amendment is concerned, the law is well settled in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256 that amendments are to be liberally allowed before commencement of trial. Considering the above the defendant can raise all his contentions by amending his written statement. No error is found in the impugned order. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. ( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ) ssc/