1 18-sr27-W.P. No.4419 of 2024.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4419 OF 2024 Ashok s/o. Sambhu @ Sambhaji Panchal, Age 26 Years, Occ. Education, r/o. Bhavthana, Taluka Ambajogai, Dist. Beed and four others ..Petitioners Vs. Sambhu @ Sambhaji s/o. Ramkrushna Panchal, Age : 35 Years, Occ. Agri. and Labour, r/o. Bhavthana, Taluka Ambajogai, Dist.Beed and three others ..Respondents ---- Mr.S.V.Hange, Advocate for petitioners Mr.M.P.Kale, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4 ---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 PER COURT :- Heard learned advocates for the parties extensively. Considering the short controversy before this court, I have heard learned advocates for both sides for final disposal of the petition. 2. The petitioners are at the risk to satisfy the test of due diligence at this juncture in the suit seeking amendment in the pleadings by incorporating certain parties as party defendants. Suffice it to note, Regular Civil Suit No.385 of 2012 is filed by the petitioners 2026:BHC-AUG:42811 2 18-sr27-W.P. No.4419 of 2024.docx against the present respondents with three prominent prayers. The petitioners sought partition in the suit property claiming 1/6th share and sought possession of the same. Besides this, they also sought declaration of nullity in respect of the sale deeds executed by the defendants in favour of the third parties. 3. The petitioners in their pleadings at paragraphs 7 to 9 has given the details of the sale deeds of which they have sought cancellation. The names of the persons in whose favour the sale deeds were executed were also mentioned in the pleadings. 4. The defendants appeared in the suit and disputed the claim on all counts. At paragraph 24 of written statement, specific objection is raised by the defendants for not adding the necessary parties i.e. vendees under the sale deeds of which declaration is sought by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 5. Subsequently, issues were framed by the trial Court on 20.06.2017. Issue no.3 is framed calling upon the plaintiffs to prove that the defendant no.1 executed nominal sale deeds of suit property in favour of the third party. 3 18-sr27-W.P. No.4419 of 2024.docx 6. Thereafter, while the evidence was opened, on 01.02.2024 the plaintiffs filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to add seven persons as party defendants. The substance of the application is that these are the persons who are the vendees under the sale deeds which are under challenge in the suit. The said application was opposed by the present respondents. 7. After hearing both the parties, the trial court pleased to reject application Exh.138 vide order dated 12.03.2024 which is impugned in the present petition. 8. Mr.S.V.Hange, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have already given reference of those third parties in their pleadings and it cannot be said that all of a sudden the application is filed. He also submits that the issue of limitation will also not come in way since there is already prayer seeking cancellation of the sale deeds executed in favour of the proposed defendants. Mr.Hange concludes his argument by submitting that the third parties i.e. proposed defendants are necessary parties and hence the trial court ought to have allowed the application. 9. Mr.M.P.Kale, learned advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4 would stand by the order passed by the trial court and would support 4 18-sr27-W.P. No.4419 of 2024.docx the reasoning rendered by the it. He would submit that the application Exh.138 was filed at least 15 years after the limitation period is over. Contending that the application Exh.138 is nothing but the abuse of process, Mr.Kale prays to dismiss this petition. 10. Considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates for the parties. 11. Apparently, the plaintiffs have given the names of the third parties/purchasers in their pleadings. The prayer clause of the plaint shows that they have sought invalidity of those sale deeds. The defendants have categorically objected in the written statement that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On the basis of that, the issues were framed way back in 2017. At this juncture when the examination-in-chief is honoured by the plaintiffs the application Exh.138 has been filed. 12. It is trite law that when a party seeks to amend the petition, even by incorporating the proposed defendants the party has to pass the test of due diligence. An amendment even for adding the party under Order I Rule 10 needs to be allowed considering the subsequent developments, if any. In the case in hand, it is apparent that the petitioners/plaintiffs were well aware of the fact that the 5 18-sr27-W.P. No.4419 of 2024.docx proposed defendants have already purchased the portion of the suit property even before filing the suit. Their pleadings itself are clear wherein they have recited the details of those sale deeds while seeking invalidity of those sale deeds. The names of the parties are also mentioned by them in the pleadings. The defendants have raised a substantial ground of not adding the vendees as necessary parties to the suit. On the basis of those pleadings, as observed above the issues are framed. 13. Now, at this juncture, in my considered view the amendment cannot be allowed for the reason that it cannot be said that even after due diligence the petitioners were not within the knowledge of the information to be amended in the suit. In the case in hand, by way of amendment the petitioners want to add the parties in the capacity of defendants to the suit. Apparently, it is only after giving the evidence in examination-in-chief the petitioners/plaintiffs realised the defect in the suit and hence the application is filed. The reasons rendered by the petitioners that the amendment is of casual nature and will not change the nature of the suit is not acceptable one. It cannot be said that there was any bonafide inadvertence on the part of the petitioners/plaintiffs. It is trite law that the petitioners cannot take benefit of their own wrong. Under that principle, I find that the 6 18-sr27-W.P. No.4419 of 2024.docx petitioners fail to pass the test of due diligence for seeking the amendment at this stage in the suit. 14. The trial court has passed a reasoned order for which no interference of this court is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and as such stands dismissed. 15. Considering the age of the suit, the trial court is requested to conclude the suit within a period of eight months from the date of this order. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] ……….. KBP