[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bobby Suresh Shah vs Shehnaz Sani (Deceased) Thr. Its Lrs And ... on 7 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:400
Sumedh AO_858_2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 858 OF 2024
Bobby Suresh Shah ]
Age: Adult, 601 Blue Daimond, Juhu Road, ]
Santacruz West Mumbai 400 009 ] ...Appellant
(Original Plaintiff)
V/s.
Shehnaz Sania & Ors. ]
A 702, Milton CHS, Juhu Azad Road, ]
Santacruz W, Mumbai 400 009 ]
1A. Sonia Mudbhatakal ]
A 702, Milton Apt, H.D. Gawde Rd, ]
Santacruz W, Mumbai 400 009 ]
1 B. Shahzia Haldipur ]
501- A- Deccan CHS, Union Park, khar ]
West Mumbai- 400050 ]
1A and 1B being Daughters, Heirs and ]
legal representatives of the Org ]
Defendant No. 1, Shehnaz Sani both ]
of Mumbai, Indian Citizens, residing at ]
above mentioned addresses ]
2. Win Cable Entertainment Pvt. Ltd ]
Ground Floor, Pukhraj Mahal, Kinking ]
Road, Khar West Mumbai-400052 ]
3. Win Cable Data Com Pvt. Ltd ]
Rahejas, 4th Floor, V.P. Road ]
Santacruz W,Mumbai 400054 ] ...Respondents
(Original Defendants)
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
1
SUMEDH NAMDEO
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2026.01.07
17:46:32
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:47:55 :::
Sumedh AO_858_2024.doc
______________________________________
Mr. Bobby Suresh Shah for Appellant in person.
Mr. Durgesh Rege for Defendant No. 1(B)
_____________________________________________
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
RESERVED ON : 19TH DECEMBER 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 7TH JANUARY 2026.
Judgment:
1) By this Appeal from Order, under Order VI Rule 17, the
Appellants challenge the order dated 05th August 2024 passed by the
learned Judge, Bombay City Civil Court, in Chamber Summons No.
700 of 2024 filed by the Appellant.
2) By the said order, the relief seeking amendments to the
Plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908(CPC), was rejected.
Brief facts:
3) The Appellant (appearing in person) states that the Suit was
filed under grave urgency as the Respondent No.1 (Deceased) and 2
had illegally usurped the Appellant's proprietary business by
deploying several antisocial elements (Goondas) forcibly taking
control of the Appellant's office, restraining his entry, and severing
all communication with the staff present therein. He further states
that, when he attempted to resist, he was physically expelled and
2
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:47:55 :::
Sumedh AO_858_2024.doc
informed that his rights stood extinguished, with Respondent No.1
claiming to have purchased all rights, title and interest in the
Appellant's company. He also states that subsequent to the illegal
takeover, Respondent No.2 issued an "IMPORTANT NOTICE" on their
letter head to the Appellant's long-standing subscribers falsely
stating that the business had been legally transferred and that the
Appellant was no longer associated with the entity.
4) Being aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent No. 1
(since deceased) and the Appellant instituted a Short Cause Suit No.
5407 of 2006 before the Bombay City Civil Court.
5) The Appellant further states that, during the hearing for ad-
interim reliefs, he discovered that the Respondent No.1 and 2 has
grossly misused a "Note" dated August 1, 2003 which was executed in
the context of an intimate eleven-year relationship between the
Appellant and Respondent No.1. The said Note was not part of the
plaint when the suit was filed. The Appellant states that Respondent
No.1 had assured him that the said Note had been destroyed, and the
Appellant had relied upon such representation due to blind trust and
faith reposed in Respondent No.1. The Appellant further emphasizes
that the proposed amendment is necessary to bring on record the
facts explaining how and under what circumstances the said Note
3
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:47:55 :::
Sumedh AO_858_2024.doc
came into existence.
6) Following the ad-interim orders, the Appellant alleges that
the Respondents engaged in court proceedings amounting to gross
contempt, defamation and acts causing substantial business losses,
including loss of assets, and reputation. This ultimately resulted in a
protracted string of litigations across the Metropolitan Court, City
Civil Court, Hon'ble High Court, TDSAT (Telecom Dispute Settlement
Tribunal), and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Appellant further
asserts that Respondent No. 1 was a persistent and deceitful litigant,
forcing the Appellant to defend multiple Notices of Motion and
Appeals causing the delay in moving the Application for amendment.
7) This present Chamber Summons (No. 700 of 2024) was filed
seeking amendment of Plaint to incorporate the above events
occurring 2006 onwards, including a certified copy of the Appeal
from Order St. No. 22093 of 2008, which contains various exhibits,
affidavits and alibi material relied upon by the Appellant, various
interim orders and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated
December 13, 2007, by adding paragraphs 42 to 53 and Sub-
paragraphs (A) to (OO).
8) On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent
No. 1 (B) opposed the said Chamber Summons on the ground that it
4
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:47:55 :::
Sumedh AO_858_2024.doc
is not maintainable for the following reasons:
a) The Chamber Summons is not in the prescribed format, as
the annexed schedule fails to contain the specific text of the
purported amendments.
b) Issues having been framed on December 11, 2019, the trial
had commenced, and therefore, the Chamber Summons filed
thereafter is barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
c) The facts sought to be pleaded were within the Plaintiff's
knowledge prior to the institution of the suit and the proposed
amendment is therefore an "afterthought" intended to fill
lacunae in the original pleadings.
9) The learned Counsel for the Respondents also highlighted
that the Appellant had filed an application for framing additional
issues which came to be rejected on 28 th February 2024, and that the
present Chamber Summons is a reactionary measure following the
rejection of the said application filed with the sole object of delaying
and derailing the trial proceedings.
10) Having heard the Appellant in person and the Advocate for
Respondent No.1 (b) and upon perusing the records, I have arrived
at the following conclusions.
5
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:47:55 :::
Sumedh AO_858_2024.doc
11) Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as is well-known, pertains to the
amendment of pleadings in a civil suit. It reads as under:-
"17. Amendment of pleadings: The Court may at any
stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or
amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms
as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made
as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the
real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court
comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the
party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial."
12) The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC virtually prevents an
application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after
commencement of trial, unless the court is satisfied that despite due
diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier. The
proviso, therefore curtails the otherwise wide discretion of the Court.
The burden thus lies on the party seeking amendment to
demonstrate due diligence. An amendment cannot be claimed as a
matter of right, and although amendments are ordinarily permitted
to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Court must consider whether
the application is bona fide or malafide and whether it causes such
6
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:47:55 :::
Sumedh AO_858_2024.doc
prejudice to the opposite party as cannot be compensated in
monetary terms.
13) In the present case, the Appellant has been unable to explain
the delay from the year 2008 (being the date of filing of the appeal)
until 2024 (being date of filing of the chamber summons) which is
wholly inexcusable. The Appellant's contention that he is a party-in-
person who has been wronged and dragged in a string of litigations,
does not entitle him to relief by disregarding the principles of
procedural law.
14) Further, the Appellant has neither demonstrated how the
documents now sought to be introduced are relevant for the final
adjudication of the suit, nor how it does not expand the scope of the
pleadings as originally filed.
15) In M. Revanna vs Anjanamma (Dead) by Legal
Representatives & Others1: The Supreme Court has held that a leave
to amend may be refused where the amendment introduces a wholly
new inconsistent case or challenges the fundamental character of the
suit.
16) In Vidyabai & Ors. vs Padmalatha & Anr 2: the Supreme
Court has held that the Order VI Rule 17 CPC is couched in
1. 2019:SCC 4 332.
2. (2009) SCC 2 409
7
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:47:55 :::
Sumedh AO_858_2024.doc
mandatory terms and that unless the jurisdictional fact
contemplated by the proviso is satisfied, the court lacks jurisdiction
to allow the amendment.
17) In the present case, from a perusal of the order, it is evident
that the Respondents had not been able to fulfil the said precondition.
18) In Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India3:
the Supreme Court held that an amendment should not be allowed
after the commencement of trial unless the court comes to the
conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have
raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
19) In the present case too, the Appellant has failed to satisfy
this Court as to why the proposed amendments were not sought
earlier, particularly when the facts were admittedly within his
knowledge.
20) In my view, allowing the amendment at this stage would
cause serious prejudice to the Respondents, necessitate re-
appreciation of evidence and require further cross-examination. It
would also amount to permitting the Appellant to improve his case
filing lacunae in the evidence that has come on record which is
impermissible.
3. (2005) SCC 6 344
8
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:47:55 :::
Sumedh AO_858_2024.doc
21) The Courts have consistently held that once trial has
commenced, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC must be applied
with full rigour, and amendments sought thereafter, particularly
when facts were within the knowledge of the party and evidence has
already been recorded, are impermissible as they amount to
reopening the trial and filling lacunae. The present case squarely falls
within the said prohibition.
22) Adverting to the facts of the present case the application
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been moved at a highly belated stage
i.e. after the commencement of the trial, when most of the plaintiff's
witnesses have already been examined. The Appellant has miserably
failed to satisfy this Court as to why the proposed amendments were
not sought earlier, particularly when the said facts were already in
the knowledge of Appellant. The reliance placed on Jai Jai Ram
Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon 4 by the
Appellant will not assist him as the facts of that case were different
from the present one. In that case the Plaintiff was carrying on the
business as a commission agent and was competent to sue either in
his own name as the manager of the Hindu Undivided Family or in
the name of the family business. The suit filed was based on
misdescription and bonafide mistake and on that ground the Plaintiff
4. (1969) 1 SCC 869
9
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:47:55 :::
Sumedh AO_858_2024.doc
was being non-suited by the Courts. The Apex Court therefore held
that there is no rule that unless in the application for amendment of
the plaint it is expressly averred that the error, omission or
misdescription is due to a bonafide mistake, the Court has no power
to grant leave to amend the plaint. The Apex Court held that
undoubtedly, the power to grant an amendment of pleadings is
intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such
narrow or technical limitations. The facts of the present case (as
narrated above) are entirely different.
23) Considering the principles set out in Abdul Rehman & Anr.
Vs. Mohammad Ruldu & Ors.5 and Revajeetu Builders and Developers
vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Ors.6 I am of the view in that this is
not a case were the Appellant can say that despite due diligence the
material now sought to be brought on record, could not have been
brought earlier. It also cannot be said that, if these amendments
brought in at this stage would not cause injustice and prejudice to the
other side as bringing in fresh material would necessitate leading
further evidence and cross examination and thereby permit filling
the lacunae in the evidence already recorded. Thus, allowing any
amendment at this stage would be highly prejudicial to the
5. (2012) 11 SCC 341
6. (2009) 10 SCC 84.
10
::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:47:55 :::
Sumedh AO_858_2024.doc
Respondents.
24) I am therefore of the view that the Bombay City Civil Court
has committed no error in dismissing Chamber Summons 700 of
2024 by its order dated 05th August 2024.
25) Having perused the impugned order, I find it to be well
reasoned, clear and not perverse. No case for interference in the
order passed by the City Civil Court is made out.
: ORDER :
26) This Appeal from Order accordingly stands dismissed.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
Cases Referred:
1. M. Revanna vs Anjanamma (Dead) by Legal Representatives &
Others 2019:SCC 4 332.
2. Vidyabai & Ors. vs Padmalatha & Anr (2009) SCC 2 409.
3. Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India (2005)
SCC 6 344.
4. Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal Vs. National Building Material
Supply, Gurgaon (1969) 1 SCC 869.
5. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Vs. Mohammad Ruldu & Ors. (2012) 11
SCC 341.
6. Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and
Sons and Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 84.
