Gujarat High Court
Bhikhabhai Kodarbhai Patel vs Ramabhai Revabhai Patel on 16 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3413 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHIKHABHAI KODARBHAI PATEL
Versus
RAMABHAI REVABHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL H RATHOD(701) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR J V JAPEE(358) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
Date : 16/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Rathod for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. H. J. Japee for the respondent.
2. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for setting aside the order dated 27.01.2011 passed blow Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined Exh. 122 of R.C.S. No. 354 of 1994 with all consequential effect and further be pleased to allow the prayer made in the application Exh. 122 of R.C.S. No. 354 of 1994 and be pleased to pass an order directing the Ld. Court Addl. Civil Judge, Himmatnagar to permit the petitioner to amend the the plaint accordingly.
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further proceeding of R.C.S. No. 354 of 1994 pending before Ld. Court Addl. Civil Judge, Himmatnagar.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to pass such other order and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of Justice."
3. The parties will be referred to as per their original position before the Trial Court.
4. Short Facts:
4.1. The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No. 354 of 1994, pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Himmatnagar, instituted against the respondent-
defendant, seeking declaration and prohibitory injunction in relation to suit land.
4.2. Whereas, respondent herein had also instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 82 of 1992 against the petitioner for very suit land, which was partly decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent. The Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23rd August, 1999 though not granted any relief of Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined specific performance as sought for in the suit but observed that the defendant -petitioner herein should not disturb the possession of the plaintiff-respondent herein and to recover the possession of suit land without following due process of law.
4.3. Such decree was challenged by the petitioner being the defendant of that suit up to this Court, which was ultimately confirmed by this Court while dismissing petitioner's Second Appeal No. 174 of 2007 vide its judgement/ order dated 21 st December, 2009. Nonetheless, this Court in the aforesaid judgment and order observed that the petitioner herein can certainly amend the plaint of the suit in question filed by him and pray for decree for possession, which can be considered in accordance with law on merits.
4.4. After getting such observation from this Court, the petitioner herein has filed the impugned application below Exh.122 under Order 6, Rule 17 in his suit, thereby seeks necessary amendment in the plaint as well as in the prayer clause. By way of an amendment, the plaintiff wants to incorporate prayer to the effect that if upon leading evidence, its prove that defendant is occupying possession of suit land, in that circumstance, pass decree of possession of the suit land in favor of plaintiff thereby he can recover possession of suit Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined land from the respondent-defendant. Such relief was earlier not sought for when suit was filed on 08.12.1994, as according to the case of the plaintiff, he was in possession of the suit land.
4.5. The impugned amendment application came to be filed on 29th March 2010. The defendant has objected such amendment by filing its reply below Exh.126 in the suit. 4.6. After hearing the parties at length, the Trial Court, vide its order dated 27th January 2011, which is impugned in the present application, rejected the impugned amendment application. In view of the aforesaid rejection of the impugned amendment application, the original plaintiff has preferred the present writ application.
5. SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER-PLAINTIFF:
5.1. The learned Advocate Mr. Rathod would submit that the impugned order is bad in law, inasmuch as, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and not appreciating the provision of Order 6, Rule 17 which was stood prior to its amendment, the Trial Court has rejected the impugned amendment application.
5.2. The learned Advocate Mr. Rathod would further submit that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that after the passing Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined of the decree in the year 1999 by the Trial Court in the suit filed by the defendant, for first it came to surface that the defendant is in possession of the suit land and a necessity arise to seek an alternative prayer for getting possession of the suit land from the defendant, for which an amendment was necessary, which could not have been rejected. 5.3. The learned Advocate Mr. Rathod would further submit that, as per the settled legal position of law, if a substantive suit seeking relief which is sought for in the amendment is permissible in law, to avoid any multiplicity of proceedings, between the parties, the amendment needs to be allowed. It is submitted that suit for recovery of possession would be maintainable as 12 years were not over when impugned amendment application came to be filed on 29-03-2010 as decree in suit filed by respondent passed on 23.08.1999. 5.4. The learned Advocate Mr. Rathod would further submit that the suit in question was instituted in the year 1994 and prior to the amendment of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, as per settled law, at any stage of the proceedings, amendment could have been permitted and as such, the amendment should not be rejected unless it seriously prejudice to the interest of the other side, which is not the case on hand. 5.5. The learned Advocate Mr. Rathod would further submit that Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined the Trial Court has erroneously observed that by way of an amendment, a diametrically opposite prayer has been sought for by the plaintiff and on that basis, the amendment was rejected, is a complete misconception of the Trial Court while adjudicating the amendment application. It is stated that by seeking an amendment, an alternative relief has been prayed for due to subsequent event which has taken place after institution of the suit, which requires to be taken note by the Trial Court and in the interest of justice, it should have been allowed the amendment as prayed for.
5.6. To buttress his arguments, he would rely upon the following decision, which is as under:
(i) Sampath Kumar V/s. Ayyakannu and another reported in (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 559.
5.7. So, making the above submission, learned Advocate Mr. Rathod would request this Court to allow this writ application.
6. SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT:
6.1. Per Contra, learned Advocate Mr. Japee would submit that as such, there is no error much less any gross error of law committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the impugned amendment application and this Court should not exercise its Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to disturb the impugned order.
6.2. The learned Advocate Mr. Japee would further submit that by seeking an amendment in the suit, the plaintiff is claiming a diametrically opposite relief, as his suit was for seeking the protection of his possession in relation to the suit land, but now by way of amendment, he is seeking recovery of possession of suit land from the defendant, which is nothing but changing the nature of the suit.
6.3. The learned Advocate Mr. Japee would further submit that assuming without admitting that such amendment is permissible in law, the claim made by the plaintiff is time-
barred inasmuch as since 1994, the plaintiff was aware about the position of suit land and if that be considered, claiming possession from the defendant in the year 2010 would be time-barred, then also, such amendment cannot be granted. 6.4. The learned Advocate Mr. Japee would submit that the Trial Court has correctly observed that when the plaintiff is claiming opposite prayer by way of amendment, the same is not permissible in law and thereby, the Trial Court has not committed any error while rejecting the impugned application.
6.5. The learned Advocate Mr. Japee would further submit that Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined even if this Court is inclined to allow the impugned amendment application, all the rights and contentions of the defendant in relation to the prayer sought to be added in the suit be kept open and the question of limitation, which is germane in the matter, may be kept open to be decided by the Trial Court during the course of the trial, which otherwise observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cited decision in the case of Sampath Kumar (supra). 6.6. Lastly, learned Advocate Mr. Japee would submit that amendment in present case may not be incorporated and relate back of suit once granted but may be allowed to operate from date of filing impugned amendment application. 6.7. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Japee would request this Court to reject the present replication.
7. No other and further submissions are made.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
8. The short question falls for my consideration as to whether any gross error of law and/or jurisdictional error was committed by the Trial Court while rejecting the impugned application filed by the plaintiff in the pending suit? ANALYSIS
9. The facts which are narrated herein above are not in dispute. Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined The suit was instituted in the year 1994, whereby, as per the settled legal position of law, the unamended provision of Order 6, Rule 17 would be applicable [See -State Bank of Hyderabad vs. Town Municipal Council reported in (2007) 1 SCC 765]. Even as per the unamended provision of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, ordinarily, an amendment which is sought by the party can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings. Of course, there are few exceptions when can Court refuse to grant amendment i.e. if the amendment is hopelessly time-barred, the nature of the suit gets changed, any serious prejudice would be caused to the opponent, etc. As such by now, it is well-settled legal position of law that ordinarily, all amendments sought for should be allowed.
10. It would be apt to refer and rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Life Insurance Corporation Of India Versus Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr. reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1, which is held thus:
"71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:
71.1 Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.
71.2 All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
71.3 The prayer for amendment is to be allowed 71.3.1 if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and 71.3.2 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).
71.4 A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless 71.4.1 by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, 71.4.2 the amendment changes the nature of the suit, 71.4.3 the prayer for amendment is malafide, or 71.4.4 by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.5 In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. 71.6 Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.
71.7 Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined 71.8 Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. 71.9 Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. 71.10 Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.
71.11 Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors.,2022 SCCOnLineDel 1897)"
(emphasis supplied)
11. The issue germane in the present writ application is also covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sampath Kumar (supra), wherein it is observed as under:
"[5] The short question arising for decision is whether it is permissible to convert through amendment a suit merely for permanent prohibitory injunction into suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined [6] It is true that the plaintiff on the averments made in the application for amendment proposes to introduce a cause of action which has arisen to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. According to the defendant the averments made in the application for amendment are factually incorrect and the defendant was not in possession of the land since before the institution of the suit itself.
[7] In our opinion, the basic structure of the suit is not altered by the proposed amendment. What is sought to be changed is the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. In the opinion of the trial Court it was open to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit and that is one of the reasons which has prevailed with the trial Court and with the High Court in refusing the prayer for amendment and also in dismissing the plaintiff's revision. We fail to understand, if it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings.
[8] In Mst. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and others, AIR 1960 SC 335, this Court has taken the view that where a suit was filed without seeking an appropriate relief, it is a well settled rule of practice not to dismiss the suit automatically but to allow the plaintiff to make necessary amendment if he seeks to do so.
[10]. An amendment once incorporated relates back to the date of the suit. However, the doctrine of relation-back in the context of amendment of pleadings is not one of universal application and in appropriate cases the court is competent while permitting an amendment to direct that the amendment permitted by it shall not relate back to the date of the suit and to the extent permitted by it shall be deemed to have been brought before the court on the date on which the application seeking the amendment was filed. (See observations in Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy - (2001) 8 SCC
561) [11] In the present case the amendment is being sought for almost 11 years Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined after the date of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff is not debarred from instituting a new suit seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the same basic facts as are pleaded in the plaint seeking relief of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction and which is pending. In order to avoid multiplicity of suits it would be a sound exercise of discretion to permit the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession being sought for in the pending suit. The plaintiff has alleged the cause of action for the reliefs now sought to be added as having arisen to him during the pendency of the suit. The merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. However, the defendant is right in submitting that if he has already perfected his title by way of adverse possession then the right so accrued should not be allowed to be defeated by permitting an amendment and seeking a new relief which would relate back to the date of the suit and thereby depriving the defendant of the advantage accrued to him by lapse of time, by excluding a period of about 11 years in calculating the period of prescriptive title claimed to have been earned by the defendant. The interest of the defendant can be protected by directing that so far as the reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession, now sought for, are concerned the prayer in that regard shall be deemed to have been made on the date on which the application for amendment has been filed."
(emphasis supplied)
12. Now, adverting back to the factual matrix of the present case, it is undisputed that after passing of the decree in the year 1999 in favour of the defendant, need arise for the plaintiff to seek decree of possession from defendant in addition to prayers already made in the suit. Such decree, which was passed in favour of the defendant in his suit, was confirmed upto this Court when the second appeal of plaintiff-petitioner Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined was dismissed. The observation made by this Court in its judgment and order dated 21st December, 2009, passed in Second Appeal No. 174 of 2007 has some bearing as regards to granting of the amendment as sought for in the impugned application. The relevant observation made by this Court in para-6 of its aforesaid judgment and order reads as under:
"6. So far as the contention on behalf of the appellant-original defendant that by the decree in question, the another suit filed against the original plaintiff would become infructuous and/or there is an order passed by the Trial Court holding the appellant to be in possession of the land in question is concerned, it is to be noted that both the Courts below have concurrently found the plaintiff to be in possession on appreciation of evidence; and a final decree has been passed which is confirmed by the Appellate Court. The appellant can certainly amend the plaint of the suit filed by him and pray for decree for possession, which can be considered in accordance with law on merits."
13. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and position of law, the amendment which has been sought for could not have been denied by the Trial Court by observing that relief which is sought in the amendment application is diametrically opposite to the prayer which is made in the suit. As such, the nature of the suit is not going to change as alleged in the argument of learned Advocate Mr. Japee, inasmuch as relief of seeking declaration and prohibitory injunction would remain as it is, but there is an addition of the prayer for recovery of possession of suit land. If the plaintiff can maintain the suit Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined for recovery of possession along with the suit in question, if such another suit would permissible in law, there is no harm to allow the amendment, thereby the plaintiff can sought for recovery of possession, thereby the Court can avoid multiplicity of proceedings between the parties. As such, no further discussion on this issue requires in light of what has been already observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sampath Kumar (supra) on this issue.
14. At the same time, the submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr. Japee as regards the rights and contentions of the defendant being kept open and so also the issue of limitation as regards entitlement of the plaintiff to get the possession after this much period need some attention, in asmuch as the concern of the defendant requires to be taken care of when this Court granting relief in favour of the plaintiff i.e. Allow the amendment application.
15. The doctrine of relation back is known in the rule of procedure, inasmuch as whenever amendment is granted by court, it relates back to the date of the suit. But in a case like the present one, when there are serious disputed question of fact and law as regards the entitlement of the plaintiff to recover the possession of suit land from the defendant, and in that regards issue of limitation raised whereby an issue arise Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined as to whether such claim made by plaintiff is time barred or not, then in such situation, keeping such issue of limitation open to be decided by the Trial Court after giving opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned, amendment though can be granted, but it should be considered to be granted and incorporated in the suit from the day on which the amendment application was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff i.e. 29th March 2010.
16. Thus, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and nature of controversy germane during pendency of suit and so also the nature of amendment sought for as well as applying ratio of Sampath Kumar (supra), I am of the view that amendment as sought for by the plaintiff is to be allowed but such amendment will be incorporated in the suit and the prayers in that regard shall be deemed to have been made on the date on which the application for amendment has been filed. CONCLUSION
17. The upshot of the aforesaid observations, discussions and reasons, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside, which is hereby quashed and set aside, as it is passed without noticing the scope and ambit of the power available to the Trial Court under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined CPC while adjudicating the amendment application and so much so, it has been passed in ignorance of the law.
18. Consequently, the amendment application filed below Exh.122 in Regular Civil Suit No. 354 of 1994, pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Himmatnagar, is hereby allowed. The amendment which has been granted by this Court would be effective from the date of the filing of the impugned amendment application i.e. 29th March 2010 and not from date of the suit.
19. The amended plaint be accordingly filed by the petitioner-
plaintiff within a period of 15 days from date of receipt of copy of this order as provided under Order 6, Rule 18 of CPC. Once such amended plaint will be filed by the plaintiff, amended written statement, if any, be filed by the respondent-defendant within 15 days thereafter.
20. All the rights and contentions of the respective parties are hereby kept open to be decided by Trial Court in accordance with law.
21. Once the amended pleadings are received by the Trial Court, it may frame the necessary issues by adding it in existing issues if any, including the issue of limitation which is now sought to be raised by the defendant as discussed herein above. It is also open for the parties to submit suggested Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3413/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined issues before the Trial Court concerned.
22. As the suit is of the year 1994, it is directed to the Trial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit and all parties concerned shall extend their support and cooperation to the Trial Court for the expeditious adjudication of the suit.
23. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the present writ application is hereby partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated herewith.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Nilesh Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Jul 17 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 17 22:05:12 IST 2025