Bombay High Court
Archana W/O Ajabrao Bhusari vs Womens Education Society, Nagpur ... on 2 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5471
1 WP344.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 344 OF 2021
PETITIONER : Mrs. Archana W/o Ajabrao Bhusari,
Aged about 64 years, Occu. Housewife,
R/o 102, Rachana Jheel Apartments,
Subhash Nagar Chowk,
South Ambazari Road, Nagpur - 440 022.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : Women's Education Society, Nagpur,
A society duly registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 and having its
registered office at L.A.D. and Smt. R.P.
College for Women, Shankar Nagar,
Nagpur, through its Secretary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. V. Bhutada with Mr. Yash Maheshwari, Advocates for the
petitioner
Mr. H. V. Thakur and Mr. Parth Ranade, Advocates for the
respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
Judgment Reserved on : February 06, 2026
Judgment Pronounced on : April 02, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the learned 18th Joint Civil Judge, 2 WP344.21.odt Senior Division, Nagpur (for short "the Trial Court) below Exh.53 in Regular Civil Suit No. 701/2010, thereby rejecting the application (Exh.53) filed by the present petitioner i.e. original plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent- Society invited sealed offers from persons interested in purchasing the suit property i.e. Plot no.13, admeasuring 3500 sq.ft situated at Mouza Jaitala, Nagpur. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her offer in a sealed envelope by quoting the price @ Rs.1401/- per sq.ft. along with a Pay Order for Rs.15,000/- towards mandatory deposit. Thereafter, a meeting was convened for further negotiations with all the bidders who submitted the offers. In the said meeting, the petitioner was the highest bidder which was accepted by the respondent-Society on certain terms and conditions. A letter to that effect was issued to the petitioner on 08.7.2009. One of the conditions was that 25% of the total cost as per the offer price was to be deposited within seven days from receipt of the letter.
4. It appears that the time to deposit 25% amount was 3 WP344.21.odt extended from time to time till 11.09.2009. In the meanwhile, there was exchange of a draft agreement. The plaintiff sought amendment in the draft agreement, which was accepted by the Society. However, when the plaintiff saw the relevant papers of the suit property, she found some discrepancies in the documents with regard to the user of the suit property. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a modified draft agreement to the respondent-Society The respondent-Society was not ready to accept the same and issued a communication dated 15.07.2010 asking the petitioner to accept the terms of the agreement which was prepared by the management of the Society else, the transaction will be treated as cancelled. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that the communication dated 15.07.2010 is illegal and void ab-initio, along with a direction to the respondent-Society to enter into an agreement of sell in respect of the suit property. Later on in the year 2016, the petitioner filed an application (Exh.53) for amendment of the plaint for adding the prayer for specific performance of contract and to incorporate some additional facts. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
4 WP344.21.odt
5. I have heard Mr. S. V. Bhutada, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. H. V. Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Perused the record and proceedings.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. V. Bhutada submits that the trial Court ought not to have rejected the application for amendment to the plaint for the reason that it is barred by limitation and changes the nature of the suit. According to the learned counsel, the proposed amendment does not in any way change the nature of the suit for the reason that the petitioner is merely seeking to add the prayer for specific performance of contract pursuant to the draft agreement to sell between the parties which is already mentioned in the plaint. By way of amendment, the petitioner was only seeking to add a prayer to that effect which can in no way, said to be altering the nature of the suit. To buttress his submission, he seeks to rely on the decision of the Single Bench of this Court (Goa Bench) in the case of Anil and others .vs. Pratibha Pandurang Dhepe and others, reported at 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 397.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. H.V. 5 WP344.21.odt Thakur submits that as per Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, an amendment which changes the nature of the suit cannot be allowed to be made. In addition to that, the proposed amendment is barred by limitation which is all the more reason for the trial Court not to allow such amendment. He further submits that there was no agreement to sell subsisting between the parties. So, there is no question of specific performance of contract. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijendra Kumar Goel Vs. Kusum Bhuwania (Smt.), reported at (1997) 11 SCC 457.
8. It appears that the trial Court, relying on the decision in the case of Vijendra Kumar Goel (supra) observed that there was no concluded contract between the parties and the proposed amendment for adding the prayer for specific performance of contract was sought beyond the period of limitation. It is also observed that the amendment will change the nature of the suit and hence, it cannot be permitted to be carried out.
9. In the case of Anil and others (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, the coordinate bench of this Court has considered the decision in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. 6 WP344.21.odt Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another, [(2022) 16 SCC 1] and allowed the amendment even after a considerable period of time because in that case, the petitioner had already prayed for specific performance of contract and by way of amendment, only consequential relief of execution of the sale deed was sought. Whereas, in the present case, the petitioner had filed the suit for declaration that the notice issued by the respondent cancelling the transaction is illegal and void ; for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from creating any third-party interest in the suit property and for mandatory injunction to execute the agreement of sale, but nowhere the relief of specific performance of contract was sought. The decision in Anil and others (supra) is distinguishable on facts and hence, it will not be helpful to the petitioner.
10. The facts in the case of Vijendra Kumar Goel (supra), which is relied upon by the Trial Court while rejecting the application for amendment are identical to the facts of the present case. In the said case also, the suit was filed for declaration and injunction only and by way of amendment, a direction was sought to the defendant therein, to execute a registered Sale Deed. In the said case, the application for amendment was filed before the trial Court after two and half years of filing the suit. The trial Court 7 WP344.21.odt rejected the amendment application, however, the High Court reversed the findings of the trial Court. Therefore, the matter went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and the prayer for specific performance was sought beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the order of the trial Court refusing to allow the application for amendment. Similarly, in the present case, the suit was filed in the year 2010 and the proposed amendment was sought almost after six years. Thus, the decision in the case of Vijendra Kumar Goel (supra) would be applicable to the present case.
11. In view of the above, the trial Court did not commit any illegality in rejecting the application for amendment by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijendra Kumar Goel (supra). No interference is required in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule Discharged.
(M.W.Chandwani,J.) Diwale Signed by: DIWALE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 07/04/2026 20:26:54