17 wp 10202 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10202 OF 2026 Valmik Sukdev Gumnar and Anr. ... Petitioners versus Mainabai Nana Pomnar … Respondent Mr. Jayendra D. Khairnar (through VC) with Ms. Gauri S. Kulkarni, for Petitioners. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 28 AUGUST 2026 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 2 March 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Malegaon, whereby the application preferred by the Plaintiff to amend the Plaint so as to correct the area of the allegedly encroached land, mentioned in paragraph No.1 of the plaint, from 34 Are to 50 Are, came to be allowed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the amendment was allowed at the fag end of the trial. Though the report of the Court Commissioner was received at a much earlier point in time, no effort was made to amend the plaint. Even the deposition of the Cadestal Surveyor, who carried out the Survey of the disputed property, does not support the proposed increase in the area of the alleged encroached land. Moreover, SSP 1/3 SWAROOP SHARAD PHADKE Digitally signed by SWAROOP SHARAD PHADKE Date: 2026.08.29 15:05:56 +0530 17 wp 10202 of 2026.doc though the amendment was restricted to corrections in the area of the alleged encroached land, the Respondent – Plaintiff has carried out amendment in the plaint beyond what has been permitted by the trial Court. 4. To the extent of the area of the alleged encroached land, the amendment, even at the advanced stage of the trial, was justifiably allowed by the trial Court as it was based on the report of the cadestal surveyor who was appointed as a Court Commissioner. The Trial Court was justified in holding that the proposed amendment would neither change the nature and character of the suit, nor would it cause irretrievable prejudice to the Defendant. 5. The submission of Mr. Khairnar as regards the merits of the claim of encroachment would equally govern the case of the Plaintiff in regard to the enhanced area of the alleged encroached land as to the encroachment initially pleaded in the plaint. Thus, no interference is warranted with the impugned order to the extent of permitting the Plaintiff to amend the plaint so as to correct the area mentioned in paragraph No.1 from 34 Are to 50 Are. 6. In regard to the submission of Mr. Khairnar that, taking advantage of the impugned order, the Plaintiff has carried out amendment beyond what has been permitted by the Trial Court, it is necessary to clarify that the Plaintiff would not be entitled to carry out any amendment beyond the one permitted by the trial Court by the impugned order. It must be noted that, in the application for amendment (Exh.59), the Plaintiff has sought permission to SSP 2/3 17 wp 10202 of 2026.doc amend the plaint in accordance with the amendment proposed in paragraph No.3 of the said application. Paragraph No.3, in turn, makes it explicitly clear that the amendment was sought in paragraph No.1 of the plaint so as to correct the area from 34 Are to 50 Are only and nothing beyond. 7. Thus, subject to the clarification that the Plaintiff should be permitted to carry out amendment only in terms of the prayers made in the application (Exh.59), the Writ Petition stands disposed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 3/3