-1- WP-6002-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6002 OF 2026 1. Sadhna Pramod Kumar Sancheti Age : 57 years, Occu : Household R/o Kurduwadi, Tq: Madha, Dist : Solapur 2. Sharmila Sachin Gandhi Age : 55 years, Occu : Household, R/o Prabhat Road, Pune, Dist : Pune. 3. Shubhangi Shikhar Kaushalya Age : 52 years, Occu : Household, R/o Gudgaon, Haryana ... Petitioners (Original Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 in RCS No. 103/2013) Versus 1. Ramlal Kesharachand Lodha (Deleted by Ld Trial Court's order dated 19.03.2022) 2. Pushpawati Ramlal Lodha, Age : 78 years, Occu : Household, 3. Santosh Ramlal Lodha, Age : 59 years, Occu : Retired, Both R/o Datta Mandir Galli, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. 4. Sudarshan Ramlal Lodha, Age : 50 years, Occu : Agri, R/o Subhash Road, Nava Pool, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. 5. Savita Santosh Lodha, Age : 53 years, Occu : Household, R/o C/o: Mahesh M. Mehta, 99 B, Gulab Niwas, Near Government Hospital, Post. Gholwad, Tq. Dahanu, Dist. Palghar. 6. Bhagyashri Sudarshan Lodha, 2026:BHC-AUG:26039 -2- WP-6002-2026 Age : 46 years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Subhash Road, Nava Pool, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. 7. Surjabai Madanlal Tated, Age :83 years, Occu. : Household, R/o. Parali Vaijinath, Tq. Parali Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. … Respondents (Original Defendants No.1 to 7 in RCS No. 103/2013) ...… Mr. Ajit B. Kale, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. Ishwar K. Wagh, Advocate for Respondent No.5 ...... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 17th JUNE 2026 ORDER : 1. The petitioners takes exception to order dated 17.04.2026 passed below Exhibit 150 and order dated 13.03.2026 passed below Exhibit 146 by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed in Regular Civil Suit No. 103 of 2013. 2. The petitioners/plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 103 of 2013 seeking a decree for partition and separate possession in respect of suit property against their parents, brothers and sisters-in-law. According to petitioners/plaintiffs, suit properties are ancestral properties, and after death of their grandfather, namely Kesharchand Chunilal Lodha, they were mutated in name of their father. Later on, their father mutated those properties in the names of other defendants on the basis of -3- WP-6002-2026 so-called partition dated 03.04.1982. The suit is pending adjudication before Trial Court. While it was posted for cross- examination of defendant no.5, petitioners moved an application Exhibit 146 seeking an adjournment to cross examine defendant No.5, stating that, defendant no.5, who is wife of their brother, has performed marriage with one Mahesh Motilal Mehta, and they want to collect documents to bring subsequent development on record incorporating amendment. The Trial Court rejected said application, observing that plaintiffs are unnecessarily protracting the proceedings. Defendant No.5 is attending Court after travelling a long distance and the matter is at fag end of trial. It is further observed that there is no dispute that marriage between defendant nos. 3 and defendant no.5 is dissolved. 3. The petitioners thereafter filed another application below Exhibit 150 seeking permission to amend plaint and bring on record that marriage between defendant nos. 3 and 5 has been dissolved by a decree dated 29.04.2025 passed by Family Court, Pune in Petition No. A-1076 of 2012. As such, defendant no.5 is no more a family member of plaintiffs and their brothers. The Trial Court rejected said application on ground that proposed amendment is not necessary to adjudicate controversy involved in suit. -4- WP-6002-2026 4. Mr. Ajit Kale, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that while rejecting petitioners' application below Exhibit 146, Trial Court observed that petitioners/plaintiffs can bring an amendment of pleadings on essential facts. However, when such an application for amendment was filed below Exhibit 150, it has been rejected. According to Mr. Kale, decree of divorce between defendant nos. 3 and 5 would definitely affect conspectus of matter. The defendant no.5 would have no right in ancestral property. Therefore, those events were necessary to be brought on record. 5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that in Regular Civil Suit No. 286 of 2008, which was filed by defendant no.5 and her son against defendant No. 3 (husband), a decree for partition and separate possession has been passed, whereby plaintiffs therein are held entitled to a share in suit property. That decree has attained finality. The present suit is instituted by plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession in ancestral properties of their father Ramlal. The parents and brothers are made parties to suit. The decree in suit would govern the rights of plaintiffs, their brothers and their parents in respect of suit properties. -5- WP-6002-2026 6. In this backdrop, even assuming that a decree of divorce dissolving marriage between defendant no. 3 and defendant no.5 is passed, it would have no bearing on rights which have already accrued in favour of defendant no.5. Apparently, defendant no. 5 would have a right only in the share of defendant no.3 in ancestral properties. The defendant no.5 can be cross examined on point of subsequent events by producing the copy of decree of divorce. Therefore, this Court finds that proposed amendment would have no bearing on decision to be arrived in suit. The Trial Court has rightly considered the relevant aspects of matter and refused to grant reliefs claimed under applications filed below Exhibits 146 and 150. 7. In result, this Court finds no reason to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India to interfere in impugned orders. 8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Tandale