1 46-WP-4472-2026 (C) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4472 OF 2026 Balaso Dhondiba Jankar …...Petitioner Vs. Bhupal Dhondiba Jankar & Ors. …...Respondents ... Mr. Sandeep Koregave, Advocate for Petitioner. ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. ORDER : . Heard Mr. Sandeep Koregave, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2. The Petition is directed against the order dated 10.06.2026 passed below Exhibit-195 in R.C.S. No.283 of 2006, rejecting the Application for amendment of the plaint. 3. The Petitioner has filed R.C.S. No.283 of 2006 for partition, declaration and possession. The Respondent-Defendant filed the written statement on 23.02.2027 and raised a specific plea that, in view of the compromise decree passed in R.C.S. No.231 of 2004, the Petitioner is not entitled to claim partition. The matter 2 46-WP-4472-2026 (C) proceeded further and the Petitioner-Plaintiff adduced evidence. The Application at Exhibit-195 was submitted on 16.02.2026, seeking incorporation of the pleading in the prayers in respect of the challenge to the consent decree passed in R.C.S. No.231 of 2004. The same has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the proposed amendment is necessary to decide the controversy involved in the matter. Mere delay cannot be a ground to reject the application seeking amendment to the plaint. It is further submitted that it is explained in the Application that the certified copy was received on 13.11.2025 and thereafter the Application was promptly made. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is not a party to R.C.S. No.231 of 2004 and the decree passed therein cannot bind the Petitioner. No prejudice would be caused to the Respondents if the Application is allowed by imposing costs. 5. Admittedly, the Application at Exhibit-195 was submitted after commencement of the trial. The Respondent-Defendants disclosed the plea based on the decree passed in R.C.S. No.231 of 2004 way back when the written statement was filed on 3 46-WP-4472-2026 (C) 22.03.2007. Thereafter, a copy of the compromise decree was produced at Exhibit-110 on 13.03.2019. In this backdrop, the Application at Exhibit-195, submitted on 16.02.2026, is absolutely not entertainable. The Petitioner had an occasion to promptly amend the plaint previously, which he has not resorted to. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr.1 My attention is adverted to the principles culled out in paragraph No. 71. The principle in paragraph No. 71.9 is pressed into service. It is already observed that the Petitioner had an opportunity to seek amendment. The suit is of the year 2006. Under these circumstances, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not enure to its benefit. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders & Developers Versus Narayanswamy & Sons & Ors.2 to buttress that, if the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy, the same can be allowed. 1 (2022) 16 SCC 1 2 (2009) 10 SCC 84. 4 46-WP-4472-2026 (C) 7. The Petitioner proposes to incorporate the pleadings as well as the prayers. The Petitioner has failed to satisfy the test of due diligence. I do not find any perversity in the impugned order. The learned Judge has considered all aspects of the matter and arrived at a reasonable and plausible conclusion. 8. I am not inclined to accept the submission relying upon the judgment. The right is accrued to the other side. The proposed prayer is hopelessly barred by time, and the inordinate lapse on the part of the Petitioner cannot be overlooked. I find no substance in the Petition. 9. Writ Petition is dismissed. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] Suresh