Bombay High Court
Parmananad Motar Vahatuk Sahakari ... vs The Shriram Ustod Majur Seva Sangh ... on 22 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:19004
(1) wp-1738-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1738 OF 2021
Shri. Parmanand Motar Vahatuk Sahakari
Sanstha Ltd. Khedle Parmanand,
At Post: Khedle Permanand, Ta. Newasa,
District Ahmednagar,
Through its Chairman,
Mr. Popatrao Suryabhan Aghav,
Age: 48 years, Occup.: Agril. & Business,
R/o.: Khedle Parmanand, Ta. Newasa,
District Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
(Org. Disputant)
Versus
1. The Shriram Ustod Majur Seva Sangh Maryadit,
C/o. Kukadi Sahakari Sakhari Karkhana Ltd.,
Pimpalgaon Pisa,
At Post: Pimpalgaon Pisa,
Tq.: Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. The Chairman
Shriram Ustod Majur Seva Sangh Maryadit,
C/o. Kukadi Sahakari Sakhari Karkhana Ltd.,
Pimpalgaon Pisa,
At Post: Pimpalgaon Pisa,
Tq.: Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. The Managing Director.
Shriram Ustod Majur Seva Sangh Maryadit,
C/o. Kukadi Sahakari Sakhari Karkhana Ltd.,
Pimpalgaon Pisa,
At Post: Pimpalgaon Pisa,
Tq.: Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Respondents
(Ori. Opponents)
...
Mr. Jiwan J. Patil h/f Mr. A. B. Jagtap, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Youraj Kakade h/f Mr. N. V. Gaware, Advocate for
Respondents.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Reserved On : 17th JULY, 2025.
Pronounce On : 22nd JULY, 2025.
(2) wp-1738-2021.odt
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the
parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.
2. The petitioner/original disputant impugns order dated
22.07.2020 passed by Judge, Co-operative Court, Shrirampur in
A.B.N. No.232/2010, thereby rejecting prayers seeking amendment
in plaint.
3. Brief facts giving rise to present petition are as under:
The petitioner/society filed dispute before Co-operative Court
seeking recovery of amount of Rs.54,75,482/- alleging breach of
contract dated 18.07.2006 and consequential losses. It is
contention of petitioner that in pursuance to agreement dated
18.07.2006, respondent no.1 had entered into contract with
petitioner for harvesting of sugarcane and transportation. The
terms of agreement were reduced into writing. In deference to
such contract, petitioner executed work, however, opponent no.1
failed to comply with his obligation in tune with terms of
agreement and released bills towards work executed by petitioner.
Eventually, petitioner suffered losses.
The opponent no.1 filed written statement and generally
denied averments made in plaint. The Co-operative Court framed
issues on 18.11.2011 and posted matter for evidence. However, due
(3) wp-1738-2021.odt
to failure of petitioner, suit was dismissed for want of prosecution
vide order dated 03.03.2012. Later on, it was restored.
On 16.12.2019, petitioner filed application below Exhibit-19
seeking permission to amend plaint contending that trial in suit is
yet to be commenced. There are some inadvertent errors in plaint,
which needs to be corrected, so also some additional facts are
required to be brought on record. Eventually, petitioner sought
deletion of some portion from paragraph nos.1 and 2 of plaint and
replace it by adding some facts. The petitioner sought addition of
Kukadi Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana and its Chairman as
defendant nos.4 and 5. The aforesaid application was opposed by
respondent no.1. The Trial Court after hearing parties, rejected
application Exhibit-19 vide impugned order dated 22.07.2020.
4. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner submits
that dispute before Co-operative Court is at the stage of evidence,
however, trial is not yet commenced. The petitioner sought
amendment in plaint to remove inadvertent pleadings and addition
of parties whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication of
dispute. After taking this Court through proposed amendment, he
would submit that amendment would not bring time barred claim
or change the nature of suit or no prejudice would be caused to
respondents by introduction of amendment. Relying upon
judgment of Supreme Court of India in case of Life Insurance
(4) wp-1738-2021.odt
Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited
and Anr.1, he submits that amendment needs to be allowed, if it is
necessary for determining real question in controversy and even
when it avoids multiplicity of proceeding. According to him, Trial
Court adopted hyper-technical approach. He would further submit
that delay in applying for amendment alone is not ground to
disallow prayer.
5. Per contra, Mr. Kakade, learned Advocate appearing for
respondents vehemently opposed prayers. According to him
dispute is instituted in the year 2010, whereas application for
amendment is filed in the year 2020. The disputant has not
demonstrated due diligence in prosecuting suit. The amendment is
sought to be introduced when suit is already reached at the stage of
evidence. According to Mr. Kakade proposed withdrawal of
pleadings would amount to withdrawal of admissions and,
therefore, proposed amendment is rightly rejected. In support of
his contentions he relies upon following judgments:
1. Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal and Others Vs.
Kishore Washwani and another2.
2. Barkatali Abdul Razzak Kazi and Ors. Vs.
Manzoor Abdul Razzak Kazi and Anr3.
1 AIR 2022 SC 4256.
2 2005 (3) Bom. C.R. 104.
3 2014 (4) Bom. C.R. 327.
(5) wp-1738-2021.odt
3. Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs.
Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others4.
4. Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev
Builders Private Limited and Anr.5
6. Having considered submissions advanced, it would be
apposite to refer to the parameters for deciding application seeking
amendment of pleadings as laid down by Supreme Court of India in
case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra). It is
observed that in dealing with prayers for amendment of pleadings,
Court should avoid hyper-technical approach and is ordinarily
required to be liberal. The amendment has to be allowed, when it
would enable Court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute. Even
amendment which sought to introduce an additional or a new
approach without introducing a time barred cause of action or
intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint
has to be allowed. However, if changes sought to be introduced by
way of an amendment intends to set up an entirely new case,
foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment has to be
disallowed. It is further observed that where amendment is sought
before commencement of trial, liberal approach has to be adopted,
as opposite party has chance to meet the case set up in amendment
and no prejudice would be caused to opposite party.
4 (2009) 10 SCC 84.
5 AIR 2022 SC 4256.
(6) wp-1738-2021.odt
7. Turning back to the facts of present case, petitioner
instituted dispute for recovery of amount alleging breach of
contract by opponent no.1 i.e. Shriram Ustod Majur Seva Sangh
Maryadit. Primarily, suit is filed with contention that there was
an agreement between disputant and opponent no.1 through
opponent nos.2 and 3. Copy of agreement is also placed on record.
Primarily agreement was for supply of labours for harvesting
sugarcane and its transportation. Now by way of amendment,
petitioner wants to plead that opponent no.1/Society is under
control and supervision of Kukadi Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana.
Even Directors of that Karkhana are ex-officio Members or
Directors of opponent no.1 and affairs of opponent no.1 are
indirectly controlled by said Karkhana and its office bearers. The
amendment suggests that even liability to reimburse, opponent
no.1 or third party on behalf of opponent no.1 is with Kukadi
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana. Accordingly, defendant no.4-
Karkhana and defendant no.5-its Chairman are sought to be
introduced as defendants. Evidently, even by adding amended
pleadings, claim in the suit for recovery of amount subsists as it is.
Basis of such claim remains to be agreement between disputant
and opponents. Even deletion of some portion of pleadings in
paragraph nos.1 and 2 of dispute, nowhere suggests that any
admission has been withdrawn that would have benefited
respondents or prejudices defence of respondent.
(7) wp-1738-2021.odt
8. As observed above, suit is reached at the stage of evidence,
but trial is not yet commenced. Therefore, even if amendment is
allowed, opponents would have right to file written statement to
amended plaint. Only because amendment is brought at belated
stage, same cannot be rejected, unless it has shown substantial
prejudice is caused to respondents. Except some delay in
commencement of trial, no prejudice would be caused to
respondents. In facts of this case it is hardly affects respondent.
9. Perusal of impugned order shows that learned Judge
observed that amendment would totally change nature of dispute
and new case is sought to be introduced. However, aforesaid
statement is not elaborated in the order. It nowhere depicts how
nature of suit would change or would amount to introduction of
new case. It is true that, by way of amendment, petitioner is trying
to encompass liability of sugar factory alongwith original opponent
nos.1 to 3. However, that itself cannot be construed as change in
nature of suit or introduction of new case. The impugned order
appears to be passed ignoring basic parameters for exercise of
jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
10. Although Mr. Kakade, learned Advocate relied upon multiple
judgments of Supreme Court of India as well as this Court, those
are distinguishable from facts of present case. There cannot be
dispute about exposition of law laid therein, but even applying
(8) wp-1738-2021.odt
same in facts of this case, rejection of amendment cannot be
justified. In result, Writ Petition succeeds and allowed in terms of
prayer Clause (B).
11. Rule made absolute in above terms.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/July-2025
