16 wp 9408 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9408 OF 2026 Lalmani Bapurao Dube (deceased) through legal heirs Jayprasad Lalmani Dube and Ors. ... Petitioners versus Surajkali Sarjuprasad Mitra (deceased) through legal heirs Avadnarayan Sarjuprasad Mitra and Ors. … Respondents Mr. P.B.Shah with Mr. Kayval P. Shah, for Petitioners. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 31 JULY 2026 ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 1 July 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Vasai, in RCS No.136 of 1985, whereby the learned Civil Judge has allowed the application to amend the plaint so as to correct the description of the suit property. 3. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the Plaintiffs were aware of the change in the survey number and particulars of the suit property since the year 2010. Yet, the Plaintiffs in the application made a mis-leading statement that, upon the perusal of the record of rights of the suit property, they have noticed that the survey number and Hissa number of the suit property have since been changed. It was submitted that the falsity SSP 1/3 2026:BHC-AS:31686 16 wp 9408 of 2026.doc of the said statement is demonstrable by reference to the documents of the Plaintiffs themselves. Thus, the learned Civil Judge could not have allowed the application for amendment as a party who approaches the Court with unclean hands is not entitled to any relief. Mr. Shah placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and Ors. V/s. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and Ors.1. 4. It is necessary to note that, the suit came to be instituted in the year 1985. The interdict contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, introduced by the CPC Amendment Act, 2002, does not apply to the said suit. 5. It could not be controverted that the record of rights of the suit property reflect the description which was sought to be introduced by way of amendment. The proposed amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy and also to obviate the complications that may ensue at the stage of the execution of the decree, in the event the suit is decreed. 6. From this standpoint, the learned Civil Judge was fully justified in allowing the application for amendment as there was no potentiality of irretrievable prejudice to the Petitioners. Resultantly, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to entertain the Petition in exercise of the supervisory 1 (2013) 11 SCC 531 SSP 2/3 16 wp 9408 of 2026.doc jurisdiction. 7. The Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 3/3 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 01/08/2026 15:40:39