The amendment of a plaint that introduces a new case and contradicts prior findings is impermissible and may be quashed if beyond the limitation period.

1. Heard Mr. Aney, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

2. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 26.08.2019 passed below Exhibit “74” in Special Civil Suit No.689 of 2016 pending before the Trial Court. Respondent No.1 is the Plaintiff. Respondent No.4 is Vasant Dada Patil Seva Sanstha, a Trust whereas Respondent Nos.5 to 8 are the office bearers of the said Trust. Respondent Nos.9 to 13 are the Trustee and members of the said Trust.

3. Before I advert to the impugned order passed below Exhibit “74”, it is pertinent to narrate the relevant facts leading to the passing of the impugned order.

4. Respondent No.4 - Trust decided to construct a hospital building and school building on land owned by it. This was in 2013. At that time, Petitioner was the president of Respondent No.4 - Trust. According to the Petitioner, this was however not to his knowledge at all. It was decided that the name of the hospital would be ‘Dr. P.D. Patil Hightech Hospital and Medical Research Centre’ and the name of the school would be ‘Smeeta Patil New English School’. A tender was floated in February 2014 by the Trust for construction of the hospital and school building.

5. Respondent No.1 was the successful bidder and was awarded the work for construction for the hospital building and school building. Two work orders dated 25.03.2013 and 02.04.2013 were issued by the Trust in favour of Respondent No.1 - Firm. Construction commenced. On 05.09.2013 the first Running Account Bill (for short “RA Bill”) was raised for Rs.2.52 crores. According to Respondent No.1 this bill was certified by the Project Management Consultancy (for short “PMC”) for Rs.2.20 crores, but Respondent No.4 - Trust did not pay the said amount. On 11.12.2013, second RA Bill was raised for Rs.3.24 crores by Respondent No.1 – Firm which included the previous unpaid amount under the first RA Bill. The PMC certified the second RA Bill for Rs.2.47 crores. Since both bills remained unpaid, Respondent No.1 – Firm did not continue construction further and by letter dated 20.01.2014 called upon Respondent No.4 - Trust and its office bearers including Petitioner to pay the outstanding amount. On 25.01.2014, third RA Bill for amount of Rs.63.64 lakhs was also certified by PMC.

6. In April 2014, Respondent No.4 - Trust issued 3 cheques totalling to an amount of Rs.4 crores and handed them over to Respondent No.1 - Firm with instructions to present them on due dates. Thereafter, on 10.09.2014 Respondent No.4 - Trust reissued 3 new post dated cheques to Respondent No.1 - Firm totalling to an amount of Rs.3.99 crores. On presentation, the cheques were dishonoured. The Respondent No.1 - Firm initiated legal action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act, 1881”) against Respondent No.4 - Trust and its office bearers. Criminal complaint was filed in 2015 against Petitioner and Respondent No.5 only. In the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune though initially Petitioner was impleaded as a party, that Court in Criminal Revision Application Nos.374 and 375 of 2015 passed an order to delete the name of the Petitioner.

7. In the above backdrop, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (Respondent No.1 - Firm and its partners) filed Special Civil Suit No.689 of 2016 in the Trial Court for recovery of money (outstanding amounts under the RA bills) and other consequential reliefs including injunction.

8. Petitioner was served with the Suit Summons and filed his written statement denying his liability as Managing Trustee of Respondent No.4 - Trust. It was the specific case of Petitioner in his written statement that he was never a founder member or even a trustee of Respondent No.4 - Trust, that he had never applied for membership of the said trust at any point of time or even given his consent to insert his name as members of Managing Committee of the Trust. According to him sometime