Tanaji Tatyaso Patil v. Ravindra Anant Porlekar And Others

{1} wp348-26.doc drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.348 OF 2026 Tanaji Tatyaso Patil PETITIONER

VERSUS

Ravindra Anant Porlekar and Others RESPONDENTS .......

Mr. Manoj Sabale a/w Mr. Somerjeet Kurlekar, Advocates for Petitioner Mr. J. P. Patil, AGP for respondent - State .......

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 3 rd FEBRUARY, 2026 ORDER :

1.

By this Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges order dated 31st October, 2025 passed by learned 14th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, below Exhibit-50 in Regular Civil Suit No. 627 of 2021, thereby allowing the application filed by the Respondents No.1 and 2 - defendants under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2.

Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner and learned AGP for the State. Perused the memo of writ petition, documents annexed thereto and the impugned order.

{2} wp348-26.doc 3.

Application filed by the defendants seeking amendment of the written statement is allowed by the Trial Court. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the same.

4.

Perusal of the record shows that, the foundation of the proposed amendment is already laid in the written statement. Therefore, the proposed amendment is by way of explanation of the facts originally averred in the written statement, it does not change original defence of the defendants. By allowing the amendment, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the plaintiff. It is well settled that while considering application for amendment, the Court should avoid hyper technical approach and adopt liberal approach where the opposing party can be compensated by costs. The Trial Court has imposed costs for delay in filing the said amendment application. The Trial Court has assigned proper reasons while allowing the application of the defendants. 5.

No error of law or jurisdiction is committed by the Trial Court. No case is made out by the Petitioner to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.

[ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE drp/wp348-26.doc