Sonali Mane 20-WP-10849-2014.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10849 OF 2014 Alhaj Ebrahim Khan S/O Ahmed Khan (Decd.) Thr. Lrs. Alam Khan And Ors. … Petitioners Versus Sopan Pandharinath Lohakare (Decd.) Thr. Lrs. Ranjana Sopan Lohakare and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Abhijeet Kandarkar a/w Mr. Rohan R. Mane i/b Mr. Ramdas Shelke for Petitioners. None for Respondents. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 29 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C. : 1) The Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 24 March 2014 passed by the 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, rejecting the application for amendment filed by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs at Exhibit 131 in Regular Civil Suit No. 777 of 1987. 2) By Order dated 28 January 2015, this Court had issued notice only with regard to the permissibility to amend the plaint in respect of the boundaries of the suit property. Paragraph 3 of the Order dated 28 January 2015 reads thus: ___Page No. 1 of 3 ___ 29 September 2026 MANE SONALI DILIP Digitally signed by MANE SONALI DILIP Date: 2026.09.30 17:23:43 +0530 Sonali Mane 20-WP-10849-2014.docx 3. Prima facie the order in so far as incorporation of Paragraphs (D) and (E) after the Paragraph (C) cannot be found fault with. However, in so far as the amendments sought to the boundaries are concerned, the notice is restricted to the said relief. Hence, the parties are put to notice that the above Writ Petition may be heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission. In the meantime there would be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d). 3) I have heard Mr. Khandarkar, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners, despite service of notice of final disposal on the Respondents. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondents. The Petition is pending for the last 11 long years, and the suit in turn is pending since 1987. In my view, therefore, it is not necessary to await the appearance on behalf of the Respondents, as this Court is proposing to allow the amendment only in respect of the boundaries of the suit property. 4) In my view, it is necessary to permit the Petitioners to correct boundaries of the suit property. The amendments are necessitated on account of typographical/clerical errors. The amendments do not change the nature of the suit. The amendments are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. In my view, therefore, the amendments as per paragraph Nos. 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) can be permitted, which are as under: 3 (a) In the description of the eastern side boundary of the said property the following words "and cantonment Land" are required to be added after the words -Hissa No.8 of Survey No.601. 3 (b) In the description of the southern side boundary of the said property the following words - "and transformer of M.S.E.D.C. Ltd.", are required to be added after the words - Hissa No.12 of Survey No. 601. ___Page No. 2 of 3 ___ 29 September 2026 Sonali Mane 20-WP-10849-2014.docx 3 (c) Below the boundaries of the property described in para 1(b) in the plaint the entire sentence starting with the words - "wherein the Dargah Shariff -- is situated" is required to be deleted. 5) The Petition accordingly succeeds in part. Order dated 24 March 2014 passed on the application at Exhibit 131 is accordingly modified by permitting amendments as per paragraph Nos. 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) of the application at Exhibit 131, which are quoted in the preceding paragraph. The amendments be carried out by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs in the suit within a period of six weeks. Respondents/Defendants would be at liberty to file additional written statement, if desire within a period of four weeks of service of the amended copy of the plaint. 6) With above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] ___Page No. 3 of 3 ___ 29 September 2026