2025:BHC-AS:56339

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14039 OF 2017

Union of India through Defence ...Petitioners

Secretary & Ors. (Orig. Defendant)

Versus

Haresh Virumal Milani & Anr. ...Respondents

(Orig. Plainti

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2939 OF 2017

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 14039 OF 2017

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.4878 OF 2025

IN

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2939 OF 2017

Haresh Virumal Milani ...Applicant

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Union of India & Ors. ...Petitioners

Versus

Haresh Virumal Milani & Anr. ...Respondents

____________________________________________________________ Dr. G. R. Sharma a/w. Mr. Dhirendra P. Singh, for the

Petitioner.

Mr. Ravindra P. Mali, i/b. Mr. Nilesh C. Ojha, for the

Respondent No.1.

____________________________________________________________

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 16 DECEMBER 2025.

P.C.:

1) The Petitioner challenges Order dated 2 November 2017, passed by 5^th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, allowing Application for amendment of Plaint at Exhibit-139 filed by the Plaintiff.

2) I have heard Dr. G. R. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner and Mr. Ravindra P. Mali, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent / Original Plaintiff.

3) The Suit is filed by the Plaintiff for injunction simplicitor for restraining the Defendant-Union of India from dispossessing Plaintiff’s possession of the suit property. During pendency of the Suit, it is claimed by the Plaintiff that on 28 August 2017, his possession of the suit property is disturbed by the Defendant- Union of India. On account of this subsequent event, Plaintiff filed Application at Exhibit-139 for amendment of the Plaint.

The Application has been allowed by the Trial Court.

4) In my view, no error can be traced in the Order passed by the Trial Court in allowing the amendment. If the amendment was not to be allowed, the same would have resulted in multiplicity of litigation. When Plaintiff files a Suit to prevent Defendant from disturbing Plaintiff’s possession of suit property and during pendency of the Suit, if Plaintiff claims that he is actually dispossessed by the Defendant, rather than requiring him to bring in a fresh Suit, the Trial Court can always permit the Plaint to be amended for the purpose of incorporation of prayer of recovery of possession. This is exactly what is done in the present case. Plaintiff claims that he is dispossessed by the Defendant-Union of India on 28 August 2017. Dr. Sharma would submit that Plaintiff has never been in possession of the suit property and therefore, there is no question of him being dispossessed on 28 August 2017. He would submit that the contention of the Petitioner about absence of possession of Plaintiff is already fortified by Order passed on application at Exhibit-5 rejecting temporary injunction in favour of the Plaintiff.

5) In my view, whether the Plaintiff was in actual possession of the suit property as on the date of filing of the Suit or as on 28 August 2017, is a matter of enquiry to be conducted based on evidence. Mere allowing of amendment would not mean Plaintiff’s possession as on the date of filing of the Suit or as on 28 August 2017 is automatically proved. In my view therefore, the amendment is rightly allowed. Dr. Sharma’s contention that the amendment is not bonafide or that the same is malafide does not appeal to this Court. If Plaintiff is indeed dispossessed on 28 August 2017, he is entitled to amend the Plaint, rather than filing a fresh Suit which would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Reliance by Dr. Sharma on Judgment of the Apex Court in M. Revanna Vs. Anjanamma (dead) by LRs. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.1669 of 2019, decided on 14^th February 2019 is inapposite. This is not a case which involves introduction of new or inconsistent case changing the fundamental character of the Suit. The Suit is for protection of alleged possession of the suit property and Plaintiff contends that during pendency of the Suit, he is d