The Bombay High Court has held that a plaintiff in a suit filed before the CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002 cannot amend the plaint at any point of time. It refused to let a plaintiff in a 1995 land suit change the survey number of the suit property, and found that the claimed “typographical error” was a conscious choice.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed the writ petition filed by Subhadrabai Tukaram Kate. The petition challenged the trial court’s order of 23 April 2018 rejecting her application to amend the plaint.
Background
The plaintiffs, the wife and sister of Tukaram Kate, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 85 of 1995 at Vadgaon Maval, Pune. They sought a declaration of ownership and possession of agricultural lands bearing Gat Nos. 583 and 612 at Village Karla. Defendant No. 1, Sindhu Bhaskar Dhote, claimed she had bought the land from Tukaram Kate in 1972 and, in the alternative, raised a plea of adverse possession.
The suit was dismissed for default in February 2000 and restored only in September 2009. In 2013, the plaintiffs amended the plaint to challenge a sale deed dated 26 December 2008, but only as regards Gat No. 583.
By an application dated 27 November 2017, Plaintiff No. 1 sought to:
- replace “Gat No. 612” with “Gat No. 602” in the plaint, calling it a typographical error;
- implead two new defendants; and
- challenge several sale deeds and documents executed between 2006 and 2008.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Surel Shah, with Advocates Kishor Patil, Amol Mhatre, Anish Kikle, Akshada Nargale and Sakshat Relekar, appeared for the petitioner. He argued that the correction was formal in nature. He submitted that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which requires due diligence, could not apply to a suit filed in 1995, relying on State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council. Relying on Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, he contended that Article 59 of the Limitation Act did not apply. He also argued that any delay could be compensated by costs.
Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar, with Advocates Sandeep Phatak and Adhik Kadam, appeared for Respondent No. 2. He argued that the plaint described the boundaries of Gat No. 612. He added that the 2013 amendment had deliberately confined the challenge to Gat No. 583 even though the 2008 sale deed covered both Gat Nos. 583 and 602. Advocate Nilesh Wable appeared for Respondent Nos. 5(a) to 5(j).
Court’s Findings
The Court noted that the boundaries in the plaint, with Gat No. 611 on the east and Gat No. 613 on the west, pertain to Gat No. 612. It observed:
“Thus, mentioning of Gat No. 612 does not appear to be a typographical error but a conscious decision to incorporate land bearing Gat No. 612 in the suit.”
The Court found that the petition memo did not disclose the dismissal and restoration of the suit, or the 2013 amendment. It also found that the documents filed with the suit and a 1994 application by the plaintiffs to the Collector both referred to Gat No. 612. The two parties proposed to be added as defendants had not been impleaded in the writ petition.
On third-party rights, the Court noted that several purchasers had bought portions of Gat No. 602 during the pendency of the suit. It held that Plaintiff No. 1 “cannot now be permitted to include Gat No. 602 and thereby affect the rights of various third parties at this distant point of time.”
On limitation, the Court held that Shanti Devi applies where a joint owner seeks a declaration that another joint owner’s alienation does not bind his share. Here, the plaintiffs claimed ownership of the entire land and were not admitted owners. Relying on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, the Court held that the prayers challenging deeds of 2006 to 2008 were “hopelessly barred by limitation.”
The Court found the amendment was not bona fide. It noted that it appeared Plaintiff No. 1 sought to bring Gat No. 602 into the suit only after third parties had bought portions of it. Rejecting the plea for costs, it said that “when the amendment is totally time barred and not bonafide there is no question of allowing the same by imposition of costs.”
Noting that the suit has been pending for 31 years, the Court held:
“Though the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 was introduced by CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002, the same does not mean that the Plaintiff in a pre-2002 suit can amend the plaint at any point of time.”
Outcome
The High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s order and dismissed the petition without costs.
Case Title: Smt. Subhadrabai Tukaram Kate v. Mrs. Sindhu Bhaskar Dhote and others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 11242 of 2018 with Interim Application No. 3631 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Date: 28 October 2026
