Full Judgment Text
2025:BHC-KOL:1310
wp-8308-2025.doc
VRJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8308 OF 2025
1 Pandurang Bhagwan Patil
Age : 61 years, Occu. - Agriculture,
VAIBHAV
RAMESH
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV RAMESH
JADHAV
Date: 2025.10.08
10:07:12 +0530
2 Krushnath Bhagwan Patil,
Age: 57 years, Occu. - Agriculture,
3 Madhukar Vyankat Patil,
Age: 57 years, Occu. - Agriculture,
4 Vilas Vyankat Patil,
Age: 61 years, Occu. - Agriculture
5 Dinkar Vyankat Patil,
Age: 51 years, Occu. - Agriculture,
6 Baburao Yahswant Patil, (Deceased)
6A Shalabai Baburao Patil,
Age 70 years, Occu. - Agri. & Household
6B Krushnat Baburao Patil,
Age 54 years, Occu. - Service & Agri.
6C Ashok Baburao Patil,
Age: 50 yuears, Occu. - Agriculture,
6A to 6C, All resident of Bhadole, Tal. -
Hathkanangale, Dist. - Kolhapur.
7. Shamrao Daji Patil,
Age: 76 years, Occu. - Agriculture,
All 1 to 7 are R/o. Bhadole, Tal. -
Hathkanangale, Dist. Kolhapur.
… Petitioners
1
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 10:09:35 :::
wp-8308-2025.doc
V/s.
Shivaji Krushnath Patil,
Age: 35 years, Occu.- Agriculture,
R/o. Bhadole, Tal.-Hathkanangale,
Dist. Kolhapur … Respondent
Mr. N. J. Patil i/by Mr. Akshay N. Patil for the
petitioners.
Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar with Mr. Dhananjay A.
Utture, C. S. Sankpal and Mr. Ritesh R. Raut for the
respondent.
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 3, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 7, 2025
JUDGMENT.:
1. The petitioners, being original plaintiffs, approach this Court
with following prayer:
“(b) that this Hon’ble Court after going into the legality,
validity and propriety of the impugned Judgment and Orders
th
dated 20 September, 2023 (Ex. ‘A’) passed at Exhibit ‘35’
and the Order (Ex. ‘B’) passed at Exhibit ‘37’ respectively in
nd
Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 2022 passed by the Learned 2
Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pethvadgaon be pleased to
quash and set aside the same and further be pleased to allow
the amendment application at Ex. 37 entirely;”
2. The petitioners – original plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil
2
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 10:09:35 :::
wp-8308-2025.doc
Suit No. 26 of 2022 before Civil Court, Junior Division,
Pethvadgaon, seeking a decree of perpetual injunction. The
plaintiffs had claimed that they are tenants in suit property.
Eventually, they are entitled to ownership rights under Section 32G
of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
However, the defendant is obstructing their possession over suit
property. Defendant refuted plaintiffs’ claim by filing a written
statement and denied claim of plaintiffs. Defendant filed an
application below Exhibit–35 seeking to frame an issue of tenancy
and reference thereof to competent authority under Maharashtra
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Trial Court allowed
application on 20th September 2023, looking to the pleadings and
contentions of parties, and made a reference under Section 85A of
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, to the
competent authority.
3. The plaintiffs filed an application below Exhibit–37 under
Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking
permission to amend the plaint. The amendment was sought
particularly in paragraph Nos. 3, 4, and 5 of plaint. The petitioners
sought to withdraw contention that the plaintiffs are in possession
3
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 10:09:35 :::
wp-8308-2025.doc
as tenants or that they were entitled to the benefit under Section
32G. Apart from that plaintiffs sought to raise claim that the land
in question had been regranted in name of Govinda under the
provisions of the Inam Abolition Act. Eventually, Tahsildar affirmed
mutation entry in RTS No. 21 of 1980.
4. The defendant opposed plaintiffs’ application on the ground
that amendment seeks withdrawal of the case pleaded and an
introduction of an altogether different case. The Trial Court, after
considering the rival contentions, partly allowed the application
filed below Exhibit–37. The plaintiffs were permitted to add
names of Govinda, Ramchandra, Krushant, Shivaji, and Chaya in
the plaint, whereas the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ prayer to
delete the stipulations regarding the claim based on tenancy rights
and addition of claim over suit property based on regrant under
Inam Abolition Act.
5. Mr. N. J. Patil, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners, vehemently submits that plaintiffs and defendant
originally belongs to the same family. Apparently, the plaintiffs
cannot have a claim over the suit land as tenants. However, since
they were not in possession of the requisite documents, they
4
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 10:09:35 :::
wp-8308-2025.doc
pleaded a right over the property as tenants. In fact, they are
entitled to claim rights over the property on the basis of regrant
under the Inam Abolition Act. The petitioners, therefore, applied
for necessary amendment, seeking permission to amend pleadings
and delete particulars as to tenancy, and to put forth claim on the
basis of regrant under the Inam Abolition Act. The plaintiffs have
recently received copies of the relevant orders passed by the
competent authority.
6. Mr. Arjunwadkar, learned advocate appearing for
respondent, supports the impugned order. According to him,
petitioners want to replace entire plaint and introduce a
completely new case. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated
contents of proposed amendment and refused to entertain clauses
which are beyond jurisdiction of Court under Order VI Rule 17 of
Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
7. At this stage, Mr. N. J. Patil, learned advocate appearing for
petitioners, on instructions from petitioner No. 1 – Pandurang
Bhagwan Patil, and petitioner No. 2 – Krushnath Bhagwan Patil,
who are personally present in Court, submits that if the petitioners
are permitted to delete particulars of pleading as to tenancy, they
5
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 10:09:35 :::
wp-8308-2025.doc
would not press for proposed amendment as per clause 5(A) of
application filed below Exhibit–37. However, he urges that
petitioners may be given liberty to rely upon the orders passed by
revenue authorities under provisions of the Inam Abolition Act.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned
advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that
suit is instituted for relief of injunction. Initially, plaintiffs and
defendant have asserted respective possession over the property.
The plaintiffs asserted their right in suit property under provisions
of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
However, by way of proposed amendment, they want to withdraw
such contentions, giving reason that they were not equipped with
requisite documents at the time of drafting plaint. In this
background, when suit is at the pre-trial stage, if plaintiffs are
permitted to withdraw their claim as to tenancy, no prejudice
would be caused to defendant. Since suit is for the relief of
injunction, it is for plaintiffs to prove their possession over suit
property.
9. Since plaintiffs have not pressed proposed amendment in
clause No. 5(A) as shown in the amendment application, there
6
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 10:09:35 :::
wp-8308-2025.doc
would be no impediment in permitting plaintiffs to delete their
pleading asserting tenancy rights. However, plaintiffs would be at
liberty to establish their possession on the basis of revenue records
or orders passed by competent authorities, depicting their
continuous possession as claimed.
10. In that view of the matter, order of Trial Court passed below
Exhibit–35, thereby framing issue of tenancy and consequential
reference to the competent authority, will have to be quashed and
set aside, as the dispute in suit would be restricted to possession
over suit property, without any claim as to tenancy right on behalf
of plaintiffs.
11. In that view of the matter, writ petition is partly allowed.
th
12. Impugned order dated 20 September 2023, passed below
Exhibit- 35, is quashed and set aside.
th
13. Impugned order dated 20 September 2023, passed below
Exhibit- 35, is modified.
14. The petitioners shall be entitled to amend their plaint as
proposed in paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 of amendment application.
15. Claim for proposed amendment as per Clause 5(A) stands
7
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 10:09:35 :::
wp-8308-2025.doc
rejected being not pressed.
16. Necessary amendment to be carried out within a period of
four weeks from today.
17. The Trial Court shall endeavour to decide suit expeditiously
and, in any case, within a period of one year from today.
18. Parties to cooperate to early disposal of suit.
19. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed
of.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
8
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 10:09:35 :::