904-WP-12212-2025 (C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12212 OF 2025 Khandu Tulshiram Chormale & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Chettinad Cement Corpration Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents ….. Adv. Hrishikesh S. Shinde, for Petitioner. Adv. Prasad B. Kulkarni, for Respondent No.1. ….. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026. P.C. : Heard. 2. The writ petition is directed against order dated 20.03.2025 passed below Exhibit 42, recalling the order passed on 20.12.2023 below Exhibit - 22 in Regular Civil Appeal (RCA) No. 22 of 2023. 3. The petitioners are the plaintiff in RCS No. 435 of 2015 and the respondents were defendants. The suit was decreed partly, granting share to the plaintiff and directing that the sale deed dated 30.01.2012 executed by respondent Nos 2 to 4 in favour of the respondent No.1 would not be binding upon him to the extent of 1/5th share. Being aggrieved by the decree, respondent No.1 has preferred RCA No. 22 of ZIP 1 of 5 904-WP-12212-2025 (C).doc 2023, which is pending. 4. It revealed to the petitioners that the subject matter is wrongly described as land Gat No. 41/1A instead of Gat No.45/1/B. The Sale Deed executed in favour of the respondent No.1 also refers to Gat No.45/1/B. After the decree, CMA No. 249 of 2023 was filed under section 152 of CPC. It was rejected on 26.10.2023. In RCA No. 22 of 2023, application Exhibit - 22 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking correction in the subject matter shown in the plaint. After hearing parties, application was allowed by order dated 20.12.2023. The order was sought to be reviewed by application Exhibit - 42 which was allowed by the impugned order. 5. The Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the mistake in the description of the subject matter is inadvertent and parties understood that it was Gat No. 45/1/B. The sale deed also confirms the said situation and no prejudice would be caused. It is further contended that impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioners. It is vehemently contended that the finding that CMA No. 249 of 2023 was rejected and it was suppressed is ex-facie illegal. 6. The submissions are repelled by learned counsel, Mr. Kulkarni on the ground that order of rejection of CMA No. 249 of 2023 has not been assailed and the application Exhibit - 22 was not maintainable as the issue was finally decided. It is further contended that the petitioners ZIP 2 of 5 904-WP-12212-2025 (C).doc did not qualify the test of due diligence. It is submitted that petitioners suppressed material facts and adopted a very casual approach. The mistake on the part of the petitioners is stated to be deliberate. 7. Undisputedly, Sale Deed dated 30.01.2012 bearing registration No.456 refers to land Gat No.45/1/B, which was executed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in favor of the respondent No.1. It was nobody’s case that two or more suit lands were subject matter in the suit. The solitary property was Gat No.45/1/B, which is castigated to be alienated without consent of the petitioners being joint family property. 8. The rejection of CMA No. 249 of 2023 by order dated 26.10.2023 was not on merit and would not cause any prejudice to substantive rights of the parties. It was an application preferred under Section 152 of CPC. It was rejected as the respondent No.1 had preferred RCA No. 22 of 2023. Its rejection would not operate res judicata for taking out any application seeking correction in the subject matter of the plaint. 9. I find no merit in the submissions of learned counsel, Mr. Kulkarni, that as the order passed in CMA No. 249 of 2023 was not subjected to challenge, application Exhibit - 22 should not have been entertained. As the order passed in CMA No. 249 of 2023 did not tdecide substantive rights of the parties qua the subject matter, the findings recorded in the impugned order are ex-facie illegal. It is overlooked that said application was preferred under Section 152 of ZIP 3 of 5 904-WP-12212-2025 (C).doc CPC and the application Exhibit - 22 was under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. It was always open for the petitioners to seek remedy for the correction of the subject matter. I find that impugned order is unsustainable. 10. It reveals from record that the mistake is obvious and due to inadvertence on the part of the petitioners. No oblique motive can be attributed to him. It is very surprising as to how the respondent No.1 could oppose the application Exhibit - 22 or could resort to review by filing application Exhibit - 42. I find that this is a feeble attempt on the part of the respondent No.1 to dodge the decree passed by the Trial Court or its execution. 11. The learned judge committed error in holding that application Exhibit - 38 was preferred by the petitioners in paragraph No.3 of the impugned order, which is inconsistent with the observations in paragraph No.2. 12. My attention was invited to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. The facts are distinguishable. The suppression of facts recorded by Honorable Apex Court is in context of those facts. No benefit of the order can be given to the respondent. 13. For the reasons stated above, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘b’. ZIP 4 of 5 904-WP-12212-2025 (C).doc 14. In view of disposal of writ petition, pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] ZIP 5 of 5