13 wp 11853 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11853 OF 2026 Kunda Ambadas Hanumante and Anr. ... Petitioners versus Anil Maruti Raut and Anr. … Respondents Mr. Sachin Pawar i/by Mr. Tejas Mane, for Petitioners. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 11 SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to the orders dated 30 September 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Indapur, whereby the applications (Exhs.78 and 89) preferred by the Petitioners – Plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint, came to be rejected. 3. In the year 2011, the Petitioners – Plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking declaration that the registered agreement for sale dated 29 January 1996 executed by the Plaintiffs in favour of the Defendants be cancelled and for recovery of possession of the suit land purportedly agreed to be sold to the Defendants thereunder and for injunctive reliefs. The Plaintiffs claimed that the said registered agreement for sale was a subterfuge for the money lending transaction. The Defendants had, in fact, illegally lent money to the Plaintiffs at exorbitant rate of interest and despite the repayment of the loan, SSP 1/5 2026:BHC-AS:37828 13 wp 11853 of 2026.doc the Defendants refused to cancel the instrument and deliver the possession of the suit land. 4. The Defendants resisted the suit. Issues were settled on 9 January 2012. The Plaintiffs filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. While the suit was posted for recording the cross-examination of the Plaintiffs’ witness, the Plaintiffs filed an application (Exh.78) seeking amendment in the plaint to assert the purported illegality of the transaction and also implead the daughters of Plaintiff No.1 as parties to the suit, asserting that the release deed executed by the daughters of Plaintiff No.1 in favour of the Plaintiffs was null and void. 5. During the pendency of the said application, the Plaintiffs took out another application (Exh.89) seeking further amendment in the plaint so as to bring on record the instruments allegedly obtained by the predecessor in title of the Defendants from other persons in connection with the illegal money lending business and implead those persons as party Defendants to the suit. 6. By the impugned orders, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to reject both the applications as the interdict contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was attracted, and, even otherwise, the proposed amendments were not necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy between the parties. Nor the proposed Defendants were either necessary or proper parties to the suit. SSP 2/5 13 wp 11853 of 2026.doc 7. Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the learned Civil Judge exercised the jurisdiction in dissonance with the settled principles of law in the matter of amendment in the pleadings. Corrections in the date of the agreement for sale and the impleadment of the daughters of Plaintiff No.1, were essential for a just decision of the case. Even the subsequent application for amendment (Exh.89) could not have been rejected by the learned Civil Judge as the proposed amendment was in amplification of the pleaded case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants were engaged in illegal money lending business and the agreement for sale was a ruse for the real transaction between the parties. 8. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submissions of Mr. Pawar. At the outset, it is necessary to note that, it could not be controverted that the trial had commenced, in as much as the issues were settled in the year 2012 and the Plaintiffs had filed their evidence and at the stage of the cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s witness, applications for amendment were filed. 9. This Court was anxious to know whether the Plaintiffs have made out any case for permitting the amendment despite commencement of the trial. It is pertinent to note that, in the first application for amendment (Exh.78), no reason was ascribed for not seeking the amendment before the commencement of the trial. It was simply mentioned that, in view of the SSP 3/5 13 wp 11853 of 2026.doc change in the legal position and to remove the technical defects, amendment was required to be made in the plaint. It does not appear that any reason, much less one that satisfies the test of due diligence was ascribed. 10. Second application (Exh.89) also suffered from the same infirmity. It was simply mentioned that, certain amendments were required to be made in the plaint in the interest of justice. It is fairly crystalized that, the satisfaction of the Court that in spite of due diligence, a party seeking amendment could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial is the jurisdictional fact and, in the absence thereof, the Court cannot exercise discretion to permit amendment in the pleading post the commencement of the trial. (Vidyabai And Ors Vs Padmalatha & Anr.)1 11. Even on the merits, this Court finds that the learned Civil Judge was justified in rejecting both the applications. First application was in the nature of assertion of an inconsistent plea in as much as the Plaintiffs professed to withdraw the admission that the daughters of Defendants No.1 had relinquished their right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of the Plaintiffs under a release deed dated 3 October 1993 and seek a declaration that the said registered release deed was illegal and void. The proposed amendment would, thus, fall foul of the principle of potentiality of prejudice. 12. The amendment sought to be introduced by the application (Exh.89) 1 (2009) 2 SCC 409 SSP 4/5 13 wp 11853 of 2026.doc was rightly held by the learned Civil Judge to be not necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy, as by the said amendment the Plaintiffs intended to bring on record the instruments which were obtained by the predecessor in title of the Defendants in pursuance of the purported illegal money lending transactions with the third parties and implead those parties as parties to the instant suit. The learned Civil Judge was justified in holding that, at best, that was a matter of evidence which was not required to be pleaded. 13. Looked at from any perspective, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. 14. Resultantly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 5/5 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/09/2026 19:52:35