Bombay High Court Allows Amendment of Suit at Appellate Stage to Include Additional Joint Family Property.

Headnote:

The Bombay High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the appellate court’s order allowing amendment of the plaint to include an additional property (Gut No.28-B) in a partition suit. The Court held that amendment at the appellate stage is permissible where it does not change the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action. Delay in seeking amendment is not fatal if it serves the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of litigation and achieving finality.

Background:

1. Respondents had filed Regular Civil Suit No.136/1995 seeking partition and separate possession of joint family properties.
2. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that respondents failed to include all joint family properties in the “common hotchpotch,” framing Issue No.1-C accordingly.
3. While the Regular Civil Appeal No.362/2015 was pending, respondents filed an application to amend the plaint to include additional properties (lands in villages Kodoli and Bahirewadi). Petitioners opposed, arguing inordinate delay and prejudice.

Court’s Observations:

1. Powers of amendment are broad but cannot alter the nature of the suit or substitute a new cause of action.
2. Plaintiffs sought amendment merely to include one more property, which was part of joint family property and previously contested.
3. Delay in seeking amendment at appellate stage was justified due to Trial Court’s adverse finding on exclusive ownership of the property.
4. Allowing amendment avoids multiplicity of litigation and ensures finality.
5. Previous precedents cited by petitioners (Sasa Detergent Division v. Damodar S. Mudliyar; Yovel Kumar v. Anand Kumari) were distinguishable on facts.
6. The Court noted supportive authorities: Pankaja v. Yellappa; Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Director General; Usha Balasaheb Swami v. Kiran Appaso Swami, emphasizing liberal exercise of amendment powers to serve ends of justice.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Amendment of pleadings.
2. Article 226, Constitution of India – Writ jurisdiction of High Court.

Decision

Writ Petition dismissed; discretion exercised by Appellate Court to allow amendment at appellate stage upheld.

Citation: 2025:BHC-KOL:2558

Case: Balasaheb Lalasaheb Jadhav & Ors. v. Vyankatrao Shankarrao Jadhav & Ors.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur

Coram: S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

Date of Decision: 17 November 2025

Writ Petition No.: 8893 of 2024