Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 27 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners (Arun Narayan Patil and others) filed Writ Petition No.1918 of 2016 challenging the order dated 14 September 2015 of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, which dismissed Chamber Summons Nos.718 of 2010 and 1089 of 2011 filed for amendment of S.C. Suit No.9984 of 1991 (originally High Court Suit No.1212 of 1991).
  • The original suit sought declaration that certain properties, including land bearing Survey No.151A (38,374.72 sq.m.) in Village‑Nahur, Mumbai Suburban District, are Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties and sought partition by metes and bounds.
  • Survey No.151A was transferred on 14 January 1971 by an indenture from Ratansey Karsandas & Ors. (Khots of Bhandup) to Bafna Charitable Trust (BCT). Plaintiffs deliberately did not implead BCT to avoid misjoinder, although the land was listed in Exhibit E of the suit.
  • A Court Receiver was appointed over the suit properties, including Survey No.151A. BCT filed Notice of Motion No.3479 of 2004 under Order 40 Rule 1(2) CPC seeking deletion of Survey No.151A from the suit and discharge of the Receiver. The High Court allowed the motion on 1 August 2008, directing deletion of the land and discharge of the Receiver; this order attained finality after dismissal of appeals (17 Oct 2008, 14 May 2009).
  • On 28 Oct 2009 BCT conveyed the plot to Respondent No.72 – M/s Atul Builders and Estates Ltd.
  • Plaintiffs filed Chamber Summons No.718 of 2010 to implead BCT and seek a declaration that BCT has no right, title or interest in Survey No.151A; Chamber Summons No.1089 of 2011 sought similar relief against Atul Builders.
  • The City Civil Court dismissed both summons on 12 Aug 2011; the dismissal was set aside by consent on 1 Dec 2011 and the summons were remanded for fresh consideration. The matter was transferred to the City Civil Court in 2012 and finally dismissed again on 14 Sep 2015.
  • Petitioners argued that the 2008 order gave them liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings, including impleading BCT, and that pre‑trial amendment should be liberally allowed. They relied on several Supreme Court and High Court precedents supporting amendment of pleadings.
  • Respondent No.72 (Atul Builders) opposed, contending the amendment is hopelessly time‑barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that the alienation by the Khot family in 1971 is a matter already before a separate suit (Suit No.8031 of 1984) and cannot be raised in the partition suit.
  • The Court examined the relevance of the 2008 order, concluding that the phrase “adopt appropriate proceedings” did not empower the plaintiffs to re‑include Survey No.151A, which had been expressly deleted.
  • The Court held that the amendment would introduce a new cause of action concerning the validity of the 1971 indenture and the 2009 conveyance, thereby changing the nature of the suit and constituting misjoinder of parties.
  • On limitation, the Court noted that while Order 6 Rule 17 CPC allows amendment at any stage, the amendment sought is barred by limitation because the cause of action (challenge to alienation) arose in 1971 and the plaintiffs were aware of it at the time of filing the original suit in 1991. The amendment applications were filed in 2010 and 2011, i.e., more than 20 years later, making them time‑barred.
  • The Court cited Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders, South Konkan Distilleries, A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. vs. Damodar Valley Corp.) to affirm that a time‑barred claim cannot be introduced by amendment.
  • The Court also referred to the Apex Court order dated 8 Aug 2017, which held that a fresh call on impleadment can be taken after the present writ is decided, but that does not justify amending the partition suit.

Final Outcome

  • Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed the writ petition, holding that the City Civil Court correctly rejected the amendment applications. No interference with the 2015 order was warranted.

Topics: Civil Procedure, Partition Suit, Amendment of Pleadings