BALASAHEB LALASAHEB JADHAV AND ANR v. VYANKATRAO SHANKARRAO JADHAV SINCE DECD. THR. LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS
Discusses principles governing amendment of pleadings to avoid multiplicity of suits.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-KOL:2558
Decision Date: 17-11-2025
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment concerns an application for amendment of plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure. The core issue is whether the appellate court was justified in allowing the amendment at the appellate stage, particularly concerning the non-joinder of property. The court discusses the power to allow amendments, referencing Usha Balashaheb Swami and Ors. Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 602, and Ma Shwe Mya Vs. Maung Mo Hnaung, AIR 1922 P.C. 249, emphasizing that the power is vast but should not change the nature of the suit or cause of action. The court notes that technicalities should not defeat the ends of justice or generate multiplicity of litigation. The court distinguishes Sasa Detergent Division Vs. Damodar S. Mudliyar and Others, 2012 (2) Mh.L.J. 15, and Yovel Kumar and Others Vs. Anand Kumari and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 2133, highlighting that the present case involves adding property to the claim clause, unlike the cited cases which involved time-barred claims or non-joinder of necessary parties. The court also refers to Pankaja and Another Vs. Yellappa (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, (2004) 6 SCC 415; Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan and Others, (2001) 2 SCC 472; Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Director General (investigation & Registration) and Another, (2001) 2 SCC 474; Mahila Ramkali Devi and Others Vs. Nandram (D) Thr. Lrs. and Others (Civil Appeal No.2366/2010 decided on 14.05.2015); Hifjur Rahman Ors. Vs. Jaibun Nisha & Ors, (2009) 80 AIC 748; Sheo Pujan Rai and ors. Vs. Ram Ekbal Rai and Ors, AIR 2008 PATNA 50; and Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, AIR 2022 SC 4256. The significance lies in the court's emphasis on balancing the need for finality in litigation with the principle of allowing amendments to prevent multiplicity of suits, even at the appellate stage, provided it doesn't fundamentally alter the suit's nature. The practical implication is that courts have broad discretion in allowing amendments, but this discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering the potential prejudice to the other party and the stage of the proceedings. The key takeaway is that amendments are generally permissible to avoid multiplicity of litigation, especially when the proposed amendment relates to joint family property and doesn't introduce a new cause of action.
🔒 For Members Only