wp 5512-2025.odt 1 IN THE HIGH C OURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5512 OF 2025 PETITIONER : Dheeraj S/o. Ramesh Vaishya, Age: 35 years, Occu: Lawyer, R/o. Sanjay Gandhi nagar no. 2, Old bypass road, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS : 1. Gaurav S/o. Pundalikrao Munde, Age: 35, Occu: Advocate, R/o. Omsai Apartment, Tirupati Nagar No. 2, Sai Nagar, Amravati, Tq. And Dist: Amravati. 2. Rohit S/o. Rajkumar Yadav, Age: 35 years, Occu: Business, R/o. Line no. 1, Vilas Nagar, Amravati, Tq. And Dist: Amravati. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.P. Bhuibhar, Advocate for petitioner(s). Mr. K.P. Mahalle, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Kushal Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 27.08.2026. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 03 .09.2026. JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2026:BHC-NAG:11617 wp 5512-2025.odt 2 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The present petition challenges order dated 01.08.2025, passed below Exhibit 27 in Special Civil Suit No. 507/2024, by the 11th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati. By way of said order, the Trial Court has rejected the application for amendment of plaint. 4. The facts as can be seen from the narration made in the petition are as under: The suit property belonged to the father of the petitioner who by a registered gift deed registered on 01.6.2021 gifted the same to the petitioner. The mother, brother, and sisters filed a Special Civil Suit No. 39 of 2022 challenging the said gift deed. The suit being filed on 19.01.2022. In the said matter, since the petitioner was one of the defendant, he engaged the present respondent No. 1 as his advocate therein to defend the suit. On 23.11.2022, the respondent No. 1 taking undue advantage of he being Counsel for the present petitioner, withdrew his Vakalatnama from the said proceedings and fraudulently procured a sale deed in his favor from the petitioner. The said respondent, i.e. the respondent No. 1, executed another sale deed in favor of respondent No. 2 and also mutated the property in his name. wp 5512-2025.odt 3 5. After discovering the said fraud, the petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No. 507/2024 for cancellation of the said sale deeds, declaration, injunction, and confirmation of possession. In pursuance to the suit summons, the respondents herein filed their respective written statements. It is further averred in the petition that the first respondent herein persuaded the petitioner to deposit the cheques purportedly shown towards consideration of the sale deed, withdraw the said amounts, and return them back to him so as to create a false record of consideration being duly passed. 6. In this background, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment to which elaborated the pleadings and in fact explained the fraudulent acts of the respondent No. 1 by correlating it with the consideration shown in the sale deed. The respondents herein opposed the amendment application. The Trial Court, however, rejected the amendment holding that the petitioner was already aware of these facts. The said order of rejecting the amendment is impugned in the present petition. 7. I have heard Mr. A.P. Bhuibhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.P. Mahalle, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, and Mr. K.R. Jain, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. wp 5512-2025.odt 4 8. Mr. Bhuibhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the entire approach of the Trial Court is contrary to the settled principles of law since it failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment is absolutely necessary for adjudication of the suit on merits. He further submits that there was nothing contrary which was sought to be amended by way of proposed amendment and the said was only explanatory in nature. He further submits that the Trial Court has only given weightage to the fact that since the proposed amendment was already within the knowledge of the present petitioner, he cannot be permitted to incorporate the same belatedly. He, however, submits that while doing so, the Trial Court lost sight of the fact that it is a settled principle of law that pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally. He, therefore, prays for allowing the petition and quashing the impugned order. 9. Per contra, Mr. Mahalle, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. According to him, exactly contrary defence has been taken in the plaint and in the amendment as proposed. He points me out that in the plaint, it is specifically pleaded that the defendant No. 1 therein (present respondent No. 1) never paid any alleged consideration even though a consideration of wp 5512-2025.odt 5 Rs.7,40,000/- was shown in the said document of sale deed. He points me out the proposed amendment wherein it is pleaded that the petitioner herein withdrew amount from time to time from the State Bank of India and handed over the same to the defendant No. 1. According to him, this is exactly opposite to what has been pleaded in the plaint. He, therefore, submits that the proposed amendment would amount to taking away the effect of admission as pleaded in the plaint and, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 10. I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the record of the matter, including the impugned order. 11. As can be seen from the impugned order in paragraph No. 5 thereof, the only reason which has weighed with the Trial Court in rejecting the application that the suit being filed on 19.12.2024, the proposed amendment is of the year 2023. The Trial Court, therefore, has recorded a finding that the plaintiff was very well aware about the transaction as is sought to be incorporated by way of proposed amendment when the suit was filed. In other words, the Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application only on the ground of delay. wp 5512-2025.odt 6 12. In my considered opinion, the order of the Trial Court is not sustainable in as much as it fails to consider that while considering the application for amendment, the merits of the amendment need not be seen. This is a settled proposition of law which is settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. 13. Furthermore, it is also well settled that pre-trial amendment are to be liberally considered than post-trial amendments. Admittedly, in the present matter, the same is a pre- trial amendment since evidence has not commenced in the matter. Furthermore, after going through the plaint and the amendment as proposed, I am of the considered opinion that neither the said amendment changes the nature of the suit nor it would cause prejudice to the defendant therein. The said amendment is only explanatory in nature in as much as even though the plaintiff initially in the plaint has stated that the consideration was only shown on paper and never passed, by way of proposed amendment, he is trying to elaborate the pleadings, spelling out in detail the modus operandi of the respondent No. 1 whom he had engaged in the previous suit. Thus, the reasoning of the Trial Court in rejecting the amendment is perverse and contrary to the settled position of law. The order based on such reasoning, wp 5512-2025.odt 7 therefore, cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter, following order is passed: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 01.08.2025, in Special Civil Suit No. 507/2025, pending on the files of 11th Civil Judge, Senior Division, is quashed and set aside. iii) The application at Exhibit 27 filed by the petitioner for amendment in the suit is allowed. 14. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. Rule is made absolute. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Jayashree.. Signed by: Mrs. Jayashree Pethe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2026 17:50:51