1 935...odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12082 OF 2026 SUNANDA ASHOK JAIN AND ANOTHER VERSUS SANJAYKUMAR MISHRILAL KASLIWAL AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.S. Khoche h/f. Mr. Nimbalkar Sudarshan Dagduba AGP for Respondent/s – State : Ms. Preeti Diggikar … CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 09th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed below Exhibit 31 in RCS no. 122/2025 (Old no. 441/2024), passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gangapur, wherein the Application filed by the Petitioner for amendment of plaint in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected vide order dated 10.11.2025. 2. The Petitioner has instituted a suit seeking declaration, cancellation of sale deed and perpetual injunction. The suit is contested by the Respondents and it is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, after the decision of temporary injunction Application, the Petitioner realized that a prayer regarding partition and separate possession needs to 2026:BHC-AUG:42143 2 935...odt be added. Therefore, Application has been filed by the Petitioner seeking amendment in the prayer clause for partition and separate possession along with the existing reliefs of declaration and inunction. 3. The Application filed by the Petitioner for amendment of plaint was opposed by the Defendants, by way of say before the trial Court. 4. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gangapur, below Exhibit 31. The learned Judge while passing the order has observed that the suit itself is for declaration and perpetual injunction. Therefore, by incorporating the prayer for partition, it would change the very nature of the suit. Therefore, the proposed amendment cannot be allowed. It is also observed that the sister of the Plaintiff has also instituted the suit for partition regarding the same property and the suit is pending for adjudication before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gangakhed. 5. In view of the suit for partition already pending in respect of the same property, the relief for amending the prayer clause has been rejected. I do not find any merit in the challenge to the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gangakhed, since it is a reasoned order 3 935...odt and considering that if the prayer would have been allowed, it could change the very nature of the suit. It has been rightly rejected by the learned Judge. Similarly, the learned Judge has also considered that the relief which is sought to be incorporated in the prayer clause, is already a subject matter of suit for partition i.e. pending between the same parties regarding the same property. Therefore, the Application has been rejected. There is no case for interference made out by the Petitioner. 6. The Writ Petition is dismissed. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) SPC