Court Refuses to Allow Change of Suit Property from Gat No. 612 to Gat No. 602, Citing Prejudice to Third Parties and Delay; Challenges to Sale Deeds Executed Between 2006-2008 Held Barred by Limitation
In a significant judgment dated October 28, 2026, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Sandeep V. Marne, dismissed a petition filed by Smt. Subhadrabai Tukaram Kate (Plaintiff No.1) seeking to amend the plaint in a civil suit pending since 1995. The amendment aimed to correct the description of the suit property by substituting Gat No. 602 for Gat No. 612 and to challenge several sale deeds and documents executed between 2006 and 2008.
The suit, initially filed as Regular Civil Suit No. 85 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Vadgaon Maval, Pune, sought a declaration of ownership and possession over agricultural lands described as Gat Nos. 583 and 612 in Village Karla, Taluka Vadgaon-Maval, District Pune. The defendants, including Mrs. Sindhu Bhaskar Dhote, contested the suit by asserting title and possession.
The trial court had earlier dismissed the amendment application filed in 2017, and the High Court, upon hearing senior advocates for both sides, upheld this decision. The petitioner contended that the reference to Gat No. 612 in the plaint was a typographical error and that the actual land in controversy was Gat No. 602. She also argued that the sale deeds executed by third parties did not bind her as she was not a party to those transactions, relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi.
However, the court found that the boundaries described in the plaint specifically corresponded to Gat No. 612, not Gat No. 602. Moreover, a prior amendment in 2013 consciously challenged a sale deed dated December 26, 2008, only concerning Gat No. 583, deliberately excluding Gat No. 602, thereby demonstrating an intentional omission rather than a clerical mistake.
Importantly, the court highlighted that several innocent third-party purchasers had acquired parts of Gat No. 602 during the pendency of the suit, relying on the absence of litigation over that land. Allowing the amendment at this late stage would prejudice these third parties and fundamentally alter the nature of the suit.
Regarding the challenge to various sale deeds and documents executed between 2006 and 2008, the court held that the proposed challenge was ex facie barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court distinguished the Shanti Devi judgment, noting that in the present case, the plaintiffs were not admitted owners, and their claim was for a declaration of ownership of the entire property, not merely a declaration that alienations did not affect their shares.
The court further noted that the petitioner suppressed the fact of the earlier amendment in 2013 and sought to repeatedly challenge the same sale deed while omitting to implead new parties proposed in the amendment. This conduct indicated a lack of bona fide intention.
The judgment also clarified that although the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended in 2002) imposes due diligence requirements for amendments, this does not imply that a pre-2002 suit can be amended at any time without regard to delay, limitation, prejudice to others, or bona fides.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court's refusal to allow the amendment, emphasizing the need to protect accrued rights of third parties and uphold the principles of limitation and procedural fairness in long-pending litigation.
This judgment serves as a critical precedent on the scope and limits of amendments in civil suits, especially concerning land disputes involving multiple parties and third-party rights.
Bottom Line:
Amendment of plaint - Correction of suit Gat number from 612 to 602 and challenge to sale deeds executed in 2006 to 2008 refused - Where plaint, boundaries, pre-suit application, documents on record and earlier amendment showed that plaintiffs had consciously treated Gat No. 612 as suit property, proposed change to Gat No. 602 was not a typographical error but would alter nature of suit and affect rights of third-party purchasers - Further, proposed challenge to sale deeds was ex facie barred by limitation and amendment was found not bona fide.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 6 Rule 17, Limitation Act, 1963 Article 59, Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 Section 32(g)
Smt. Subhadrabai Tukaram Kate v. Mrs. Sindhu Bhaskar Dhote, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3005475
