38-WP-3858-2026=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3858 OF 2026 Laxman Vyankatnarsu Singam and Ors. … Petitioners Vs. Anuradha Krushna Mhanta and Ors. … Respondents …………. Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni i/b Nakul Vivek Shukla for the Petitioners Mr. Shrikanth Kompelli a/w Amol A. Kanaki for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026. FINAL ORDER : . Heard Mr. Kulkarni for the petitioner and Mr. Kompelli for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. The respondent nos.1 to 3 who are the original plaintiffs are the contesting parties and others are co-defendants and formal parties. 3. A comprehensive petition has been filed challenging order dated 03.07.2026 passed below Exh.225 and the common order dated 08.07.2026 passed below Exh.225 and Exh.230 by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 218 of 2016. 4. The petitioners are the defendant nos.4 to 6 who are the purchasers of the suit land from defendant no.1 i.e. respondent no.4. Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 9 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2026.08.24 19:16:56 +0530 38-WP-3858-2026=.doc The respondent nos. 1 to 3 are the original plaintiffs who have filed suit for partition, possession and declaration. The petitioners were subsequently impleaded as defendants vide order dated 06.03.2020 passed below Exh.24. The matter was at the stage of argument when Applications Exh. 223, 225 and 230 were filed by the petitioners. All the applications are rejected by the impugned orders. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the test of due diligence is satisfied by specific pleadings in Application Exh.223. Three registered instruments were discovered on 29.06.2026. It is submitted that the petitioners were subsequently added and thereafter the respondents plaintiffs filed additional affidavit in lieu of examination-in- chief. The application Exh.223 seeking amendment to written statement has been filed within short time thereafter. It is submitted that nature of the proceeding is not changing and the proposed amendment as well as production of the documents are necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. It is submitted that trial Court committed error of jurisdiction and adopted hyper technical approach in rejecting the applications of the petitioners. 6. Per contra, learn counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 would submit that petitioners are protracting the proceedings and with mala Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 9 38-WP-3858-2026=.doc fide intention, filed applications seeking amendment to written statement or production of the documents belatedly. The test of due diligence has not been satisfied and the trial Court is justified in rejecting the applications. It is submitted that the proposed amendment refers to the property described in paragraph no.1A of the plaint which is, in fact, house property and the confusion is deliberately made to cause prejudice to the respondents. It is further submitted that after commencement of the trial it is not permissible to seek amendment to the pleadings. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. Special Civil Suit No. 218 of 2016 is filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 for partition, possession and declaration of Sale Deed executed in favour of the petitioners on 02.12.2014 in respect of suit land, which is described in paragraph no.1B of the plaint. The petitioners were not party to the litigation initially but they were impleaded vide order dated 06.03.2020 passed below Exh.24. Thereafter, they filed written statement on 06.03.2023 contesting the suit and raising the plea that they are the bona fide purchasers for value without notice. 8. The special feature of the matter is that after filing of the written statement by the petitioners, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed additional affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 15.11.2025. The evidence Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 9 38-WP-3858-2026=.doc was led thereafter. The petitioner also filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief on 23.06.2026. On 30.06.2026, Application Exh.223 was filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment to written statement, within seven months. The issues were settled long back but there are subsequent development which is narrated hereinabove. 9. It is specifically averred in Application Exh.223 that three registered instruments were secured on 29.06.2026. There is no reason to discard this factual aspect of the matter. On the strength of those documents, the proposed amendment is solicited for incorporating paragraph no.8A to the written statement. The proposed amendment, paragraph 8A spells out a plea that the suit land is the self-acquired property of the vendor of the petitioners i.e. respondent no.4 – Sudarshan Mhanta. The plea raised goes to the root of the matter and needs objective scrutiny despite of the fact it is being raised belatedly. 10. Another interesting facet of the matter is that following three registered instruments are sought to be produced which are more than 30 years old. (i) Sale Deed dated 16.12.1946. (ii) Partition dated 11.02.1957. (iii) Partition dated 22.03.1993. Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 9 38-WP-3858-2026=.doc 11. There is no reason to infer that these are got up documents. Being registered instruments and more than 30 years old, they carry some probative value. These instruments cannot be kept away from the objective scrutiny. 12. I find that nature of the proceedings are not going to change. The proposed amendment as well as production of the registered instruments are necessary to decide real controversy between the parties. The delay in seeking amendment which has caused some prejudice to the respondents – plaintiffs can be equated by imposing cost. 13. The trial Court committed error of jurisdiction in over emphasizing the test of due diligence. In my considered view, the petitioners have satisfied the said test. It is over looked that a consistent view has been taken by the Supreme Court to adopt liberal approach in granting amendment to the written statement as compared to amendment to the plaint. 14. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of the Supreme Court in Usha Balasaheb Swami & Ors. vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 602. Paragraph 19 is the relevant, which reads as under :- Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 9 38-WP-3858-2026=.doc “19. It is equally well-settled principle that a prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable.” 15. It is further reiterated by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2022) SCC Online SC 1128 and especially paragraph no.24 of the judgment. I propose to follow the above judgment in allowing Application Exh.223. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the following judgments : - (i) Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr. vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 806. (ii) Ganpat Bhagoji Kshirsagar & Ors. vs. Anjana Krushna Jamdade & Anr. (Writ Petition No.10831 of 2023, decided on 09.10.2024). (iii) J. Samuel and Ors. vs. Gattu Mahesh & Ors. (2012) AIR SCW 1035. (iv) Sugandhi (dead) by LRs. & Anr. vs. P. Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC706. (v) Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal & Ors. AIR (2009) SC 1103. (vi) M/s. Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. M/s. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Ors. AIR (2009) SC (supp) 2897. Uday S. Jagtap 6 of 9 38-WP-3858-2026=.doc 17. The facts are distinguishable. Those would not enure to the benefit of the parties. In M/s. Revajeetu Builders and Developers (Supra), the parameters to be kept in mind while considering amendment to pleading are laid down by the Supreme Court which are binding upon this Court. 18. The petitioners submitted Application Exh.225 for production of documents and produced three instruments referred above. The production was allowed. Further Application Exh.230 was filed for admitting those documents in evidence. By common impugned order both the applications were rejected. 19. It is submitted by the respondents that production of the documents is one thing and reading of those documents in evidence is another thing. It is submitted that impugned common order is legal and proper. 20. I have already observed that the instruments which are produced on record are registered and old documents. The production of documents is already allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents is right in contending that mere production would not dispense with the obligation to prove the documents. It would be open for the petitioners to take appropriate steps for proving the documents. The admissibility of Uday S. Jagtap 7 of 9 38-WP-3858-2026=.doc the documents and the probative value can be decided during the course of trial. The common order dated 08.07.2026 needs to be appropriately modified. The lapses on the part of the petitioners cannot be ruled out. The evidence adduced needs to be re-visited by the parties. The prejudice caused to the respondent nos.1 and 3 needs to be compensated. The petitioners shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent nos. 1 to 3. I therefore, pass following order. O R D E R (i) The Writ Petition is allowed partly. (ii) The order dated 03.07.2026 passed below Exh.223 stands quashed and Application Exh.223 shall stand allowed. (iii) The common order dated 08.07.2026 stands modified by permitting the production of documents with liberty to the petitioners to take steps for proving the documents in accordance with law. (iv) The petitioners shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent nos. 1 to 3 within a period of three weeks either by directly depositing in account and producing receipt thereof or depositing in the trial Court. In case, the amount is deposited the same shall be disbursed to the respondent nos.1 to 3. Uday S. Jagtap 8 of 9 38-WP-3858-2026=.doc (v) The respondents shall be at liberty to seek amendment to the plaint or seek adducing of the evidence, if required. (vi) The petitioners shall cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the matter and any further lapse on their part would be taken seriously. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 9 of 9