GHANSHYAM MOTILALJI LADDHA vs BHUPENDRA MANSUKHLAL BHATTI AND OTHERS — WP/6724/2025

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 226,227. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 14-Nov-2025

CNR: HCBM040341682025

Filing Number

WP/24883/2025

Filing Date

03-Nov-2025

Registration No

WP/6724/2025

Registration Date

04-Nov-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 226,227
C.p.c.- (Interlocutory Order)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GHANSHYAM MOTILALJI LADDHA

    Adv. ANUP JUGALKISHORE GILDA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHUPENDRA MANSUKHLAL BHATTI AND OTHERS

    Adv. ,RUSHIKESH S. BHOYAR,VAISHNAV G. INGOLE,KULDEEP PRADEEP MAHALLE,AYUSHI DANGRE,ABHISHEK TRIPATHI,(FOR R

  2. 2.1123

  3. 3.SHRI HEMANT PANJABRAO WANVE

  4. 4.SHRI KAILASH RAMCHANDRA SHARMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/6724/2025 Court Decision: The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench allowed the writ petition and quashed the trial court's order permitting amendment of the plaint. The court rejected the plaintiffs' application to add a prayer clause seeking a declaration that a 2018 sale-deed was null and void. Key Reasoning: The court held that the proposed amendment sought to introduce a time-barred claim (3-year limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act had expired), lacked demonstrated due diligence, and would prejudice the defendants. The plaintiffs had already pleaded about the sale-deed but failed to incorporate the corresponding relief in their original plaint, yet offered no explanation for this omission when seeking amendment at the final arguments stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-May-2026

    For Admission At 2.30 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    For Admission At 2.30 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    For Admission-Matters Under CIVIL Procedure Code

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  8. 06-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  9. 06-Mar-2026

    For Admission-Matters Under CIVIL Procedure Code

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  10. 26-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  11. 26-Feb-2026

    For Admission-Matters Under CIVIL Procedure Code

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  12. 16-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  13. 16-Feb-2026

    For Orders-

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  14. 11-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  15. 11-Feb-2026

    For Orders-

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  16. 28-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  17. 20-Jan-2026

    For Orders -

    Registrar (Judicial)

  18. 13-Jan-2026

    For Orders -

    Registrar (Judicial)

  19. 12-Dec-2025

    Registrar (Judicial)View PDF

  20. 05-Dec-2025

    Registrar (Judicial)View PDF

  21. 04-Dec-2025

    Fresh Admission-Matters Under CIVIL Procedure Code

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

  22. 14-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 06-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prafulla S. KhubalkarView PDF

  24. 03-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/6724/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/6724/2025 Court Decision: The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench allowed the writ petition and quashed the trial court's order permitting amendment of the plaint. The court rejected the plaintiffs' application to add a prayer clause seeking a declaration that a 2018 sale-deed was null and void. Key Reasoning: The court held that the proposed amendment sought to introduce a time-barred claim (3-year limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act had expired), lacked demonstrated due diligence, and would prejudice the defendants. The plaintiffs had already pleaded about the sale-deed but failed to incorporate the corresponding relief in their original plaint, yet offered no explanation for this omission when seeking amendment at the final arguments stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case