38,39-WP-1353-2026 (C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 38 WRIT PETITION NO. 1353 OF 2026 Shivaji Bhagwan Patil ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents 39 WRIT PETITION NO. 2031 OF 2026 Shivaji Bhagwan Patil ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Secretary Revenue And Forest Departmentand Ors ...Respondent ….. Adv. Kalebag Pushpanjali Vilas, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. J. P. Patil, AGP for the Respondents-State. ….. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : Heard. 2. The petitions are directed against the orders of rejection to amend the written statement passed in separate suits filed by the respondents. The petitions are dealt with by a common judgment. 3. The respondent has filed Special Civil Suit No. 137 of 2020 and 893 of 2020 against the petitioners for declaration and injunction. The ZIP 1 of 4 38,39-WP-1353-2026 (C).doc cause of action was the raid conducted by the respondents for confiscating sand stock. The place of the sand stock is the point of controversy in the present petitions. The notice issued by respondent - Tehsildar and the penalty are under challenge in the suit. The respondent's claim is contested by the petitioners by filing written statement. 4. The parties went on trial. The parties adduced oral evidence. The suits were posted for final arguments. At that stage, applications Exhibits - 47 and 55 were submitted in the respective suits seeking amendment to the written statement. Both applications were allowed by the impugned orders. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the test of due diligence has not been satisfied and the Trial Court committed error of jurisdiction. It is submitted that no reasons are assigned for taking out the application at the fag end of the trial. It is submitted that the amendment is not technical or typographical in nature. It seeks to change the sand spot which would cause prejudice. 6. Per contra, learned AGP appearing for the respondents would support the impugned orders. It is submitted that the nature of the proceedings would not change. The proposed amendment is technical in nature and it is stated to be necessary for deciding controversy involving in suit. It is lastly submitted that by relying upon the ZIP 2 of 4 38,39-WP-1353-2026 (C).doc judgment of the Apex Court, impugned orders are passed, and hence, interference is not warranted. 7. I have considered the submissions of the parties. Admittedly, applications Exhibit - 47 and 55 were submitted when the matters were at the stage of final arguments. The parties have led oral evidence qua the pleadings of the parties. The impugned order are likely to revive the proceedings. 8. The cause of action for the petitioners to file suit was the raid conducted by the respondents confiscating sand stock. In the written statement, while justifying the action, the sand spot is recorded to be at Gat No. 83 from Sherewadi. By the proposed amendment, the respondents intended to change the said spot from Gat No. 83 to premises of Shriram Bahu-uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Atpadi. 9. The respondents are the authorities who conducted the raid. The pleadings which are sought to be introduced cannot be said to be the outcome of any subsequent events. It is incomprehensible to permit the party to change the spot when they were already armed with necessary material disclosing the raid. 10. The parties have led oral evidence and the matter was at the stage of advancing arguments. The amendment at this stage of the proceedings would lead to the inference that to fill up the lacunae, the applications have been made. I find that learned judge has committed ZIP 3 of 4 38,39-WP-1353-2026 (C).doc error of jurisdiction in permitting the amendment. It is not possible to countenance that amendment is technical or typographical in nature. 11. Though there are judgments disclosing the ratio of adopting liberal approach in case of amendment to written statement, the same cannot be blanketly applied to all the cases. The suits of 2020 are at the fag end. I find that the respondents have failed to satisfy the test of due diligence and their applications are liable to be rejected. 12. The counsel for the petitioners is justified in submitting that prejudice would be caused to the client if the written statement is permitted to be amended. Hence, I pass the following order : ::ORDER:: A. Both writ petitions are allowed. B. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. C. The applications Exhibit - 47 and 55 shall stand rejected. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] ZIP 4 of 4