13 WP-1651-26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1651 OF 2026 Yash Jagdip Mehta ..Petitioner Versus Bharati Sharad Parab & anr. …Respondents Mr. Rubin Vakil a/w Ms. Jesal Shah, i/b Daru Shah, for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajit Karwande, for the Respondents. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 08th September 2026 Oral Order :- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 07th October, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No. 963/2025 in Short Cause Suit No. 2889/2009 whereby the Notice of Motion taken out by the petitioner – plaintiff seeking redaction of the portions of the additional written statement under the provisions of Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (“CPC”) came to be dismissed. 3. The plaintiff had taken out the said Notice of Motion asserting that, the additional written statement filed on behalf SAINATH, PA 1/5 SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Digitally signed by SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Date: 2026.09.10 10:06:19 +0530 13 WP-1651-26.DOC of the Defendant Nos.1 and 3 in response to the amendment in the plaint carried out by the plaintiff, pursuant to the order passed by the trial Court on 24th January, 2024, travelled beyond the amended plaint and introduced the matters which had no relevance to pleadings introduced by way of amendment. 4. By the impugned order, the learned Judge, City Civil Court had dismissed the Notice of Motion opining that, the contentions in the written statement to which objections were taken by the plaintiff as being beyond scope of the amended plaint, were in the nature of elaboration of the defence already set up by the defendants. It was further observed that, though certain monetary claims were made in the additional written statements, those claims were not in the nature of a counter- claim. 5. The Counsel for the parties were in unison on the Plaint that, an order of this Court in the matter of Shree Educational Trust & anr. Vs. Dombivali Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & ors.1, which, in turn, refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh & ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja & ors.2, was brought to the notice of the learned Judge, City Civil Court. 1 WP/14246/2024 dt. 12/02/2025 2 (2002) 2 SCC 445 SAINATH, PA 2/5 13 WP-1651-26.DOC 6. Evidently, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, has not posed the correct question unto himself, which arose for consideration, in the light of the provisions of Order VI Rule 7 and Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC. 7. It does not appear that, the learned City Civil Court has properly consulted the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh (supra), wherein the scope of the additional written statement in response to the amendment was instructively expounded by the Supreme Court as under :- “19. When one of the parties has been permitted to amend his pleading, an opportunity has to be given to the opposite party to amend his pleading. The opposite party shall also have to make an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC which, of course, would ordinarily and liberally be allowed. Such amendments are known as a consequential amendments. The phrase "consequential amendment" finds mention in the decision of this Court in Bikram Singh and Ors. V/s. Ram Baboo and Ors. 3 The expression is judicially recognized. While granting leave to amend a pleading by way of consequential amendment the Court shall see that the plea sought to be introduced is by way of an answer 3 (1982) 1 SCC 485 SAINATH, PA 3/5 13 WP-1651-26.DOC to the plea previously permitted to be incorporated by way of amendment by the opposite party. A new plea cannot be permitted to be added in the garb of a consequential amendment, though it can be applied by way of an independent or primary amendment. 20. Some of the High Courts permit, as a matter of practice, an additional pleading, by way of response to the amendment made in the pleadings by opposite party, being filed with the leave of the Court. Where it is permissible to do so, care has to be taken to see that the additional pleading is confined to an answer to the amendment made by the opposite party and is not misused for the purpose of setting up altogether new pleas springing a surprise on the opposite party and the Court. A reference to Order VI Rule 7 of the CPC is apposite which provides that no pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same.” (emphasis supplied) 8. As the learned Judge, City Civil Court, has not framed the correct question which required determination, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Notice of Motion remitted back to the learned Judge, City Civil Court for a SAINATH, PA 4/5 13 WP-1651-26.DOC fresh decision on merits in the light of the governing provisions of law and precedents. 9. Hence, the following order :- : : O R D E R : : (i) The Writ Petition stands allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 07th October, 2025 in Notice of Motion No. 963/2025 stands quashed and set aside. (iii) The Notice of Motion No. 963/2025 is restored to the file of learned Judge, City Civil Court. (iv) The learned Judge, City Civil Court is requested to hear and decide the Notice of Motion afresh in the light of governing provisions of law and precedents and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA 5/5