Vinay Raghunath Deshmukhv.Natwarlal Shamji Gada & Anr

Legal Analysis: Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh vs. Natwarlal Shamji Gada & Anr

Citation: 2026 INSC 416
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar & Justice J.K. Maheshwari  
Judgment Author: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date of Decision: April 24, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Article 136 against High Court order setting aside amendment of plaint in an eviction suit.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The original landlord filed an eviction suit pleading bonafide requirement for himself and his family members. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. During pendency of the appeal, the landlord died. His legal heirs (son, daughter-in-law, grandson) sought to amend the plaint to specifically plead their own bonafide need (the wife’s legal practice, the son’s medical practice). The Appellate Bench allowed the amendment, holding that the original plaint already mentioned family need and that subsequent events justified the amendment. The High Court, in writ petition under Article 227, set aside the amendment, holding that the original landlord had not pleaded family need and that the legal heirs could file a fresh suit. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction by going into the merits of the amendment and misreading the plaint. The amendment was restored, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration after amendment.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh vs. Natwarlal Shamji Gada & AnotherCivil Appeal No.Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8991 of 2025 Bench Justice Atul S. Chandurkar (Single Judge) Date of Decision April 24, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 416 Appeal From Judgment dated 07.08.2024 of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 5976 of 2024

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VI Rule 17 (amendment of pleadings), Order XLI Rule 25 (remand for additional evidence), Article 227 (power of superintendence of High Courts – not CPC but constitutional provision).

• Principles governing amendment of pleadings: Liberal approach; amendment should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings; merits of the proposed case not to be examined at amendment stage.

• Principles governing subsequent events in eviction suits: Courts can take cognisance of events after the institution of the suit if they have a material bearing on the right to relief.

• Maharashtra Rent Control Law (specific Act not cited): Eviction on ground of bonafide requirement.

Precedents Cited:

• Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia (2021) – Three‑Judge Bench: High Court under Article 227 cannot enter into merits of amendment; supervisory jurisdiction is limited to seeing whether inferior court acted within its jurisdiction; cannot review or reassess evidence.

• Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders (1975) – Subsequent events can be taken into account by the court if they have a fundamental impact on the right to relief; procedure is handmaid of justice.

• Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Company (2003) – Scope of Article 227: confined to seeing whether inferior court has proceeded within parameters of its jurisdiction.

What the Judgment is About: The judgment clarifies the scope of High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 when an Appellate Court allows an amendment to the plaint in an eviction suit after the death of the original landlord. It holds that the High Court cannot go into the merits of the proposed amendment or reassess the pleadings to determine whether the amendment should be allowed. The discretion of the Appellate Court to allow amendment (especially to reflect subsequent events) must be respected unless it suffers from jurisdictional error or perversity.

3. Relevant Facts

• Original suit (2005): Raghunath Gopal Deshmukh (father of appellant) filed a suit for eviction against the respondents (tenants). Grounds included bonafide need. Paragraph 4 of the plaint stated: “the abovementioned shop … is required to the Plaintiff, for the bonafide use, occupation and enjoyment for himself and their family members…”

• Trial court (29.11.2016): Dismissed the suit, holding that the landlord failed to prove bonafide need because he had not decided the exact nature of business he intended to start.

• First appeal: Landlord appealed. During pendency, the landlord died on 24.07.2022. His legal heirs (son Vinay, daughter-in-law, grandson) were impleaded.

• Amendment application (before Appellate Bench): Legal heirs sought to amend the plaint to add specific details of their bonafide need: (i) wife was an advocate operating from a small 100 sq. ft. block behind the building; she intended to practise from the suit premises facing the main road; (ii) son had completed education and intended to start medical practice.

• Tenants’ opposition: Argued that original landlord had not pleaded family need; after his death, the need had eclipsed; legal heirs could not introduce a new case.

• Appellate Bench order (05.04.2024): Allowed amendment, holding that the original plaint had pleaded need for family members, that no adverse plea was being introduced, and that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, amendment was necessary. Costs of ₹15,000/- imposed. Directed that after amendment, the issue of bonafide requirement be referred to the trial court (under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC) with liberty to tenants to amend written statement and lead evidence.

• High Court (07.08.2024): Allowed tenants’ writ petition under Article 227, setting aside the amendment. Held that original landlord had not pleaded family need; his deposition showed only his own need; amendment would introduce a contradictory case; legal heirs could file a fresh suit.

• Appeal to Supreme Court: The son (Vinay) challenged the High Court order.

4. Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, was justified in interfering with the Appellate Bench’s order allowing amendment of the plaint.

2. Whether the High Court could go into the merits of the proposed amendment (whether the legal heirs’ bonafide need existed, whether the original landlord had actually pleaded family need) at the stage of considering the amendment application.

3. Whether, on the death of the original landlord, his legal heirs can, by way of amendment, bring on record their own bonafide need when the original plaint had pleaded bonafide need for “himself and his family members”.

5. Ratio Decidendi

• High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227: The Supreme Court held that the High Court, under Article 227, cannot act as an appellate court or reassess evidence. The Appellate Bench had exercised its discretion to allow amendment after considering the pleadings and the fact that the original plaint already mentioned family need. The High Court’s interference was based on a misreading of the plaint (paragraph 4 clearly stated “himself and their family members”) and on an erroneous conclusion that the original landlord had not pleaded family need. This was not a case of lack of jurisdiction or patent illegality (Para 15-16, citing Raj Kumar Bhatia).

• Merits of the proposed case cannot be examined at the amendment stage: The Court reiterated that while deciding an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the court is not required to decide whether the case sought to be set up will ultimately succeed. The amendment should be allowed if it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, unless it is mala fide or causes prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs. The High Court’s inquiry into whether the original landlord had actually deposed about family need and whether the legal heirs’ need was genuine was premature and impermissible (Para 16, 17).

• Subsequent events can be taken into account: Relying on Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu, the Court held that courts can take cognisance of events occurring after the institution of the suit if they have a material bearing on the right to relief. The death of the landlord and the consequent need of his legal heirs was a relevant subsequent event. The Appellate Bench was justified in permitting the amendment to reflect that subsequent event (Para 17).

• Misreading of plaint by the High Court: The High Court erroneously stated that the original plaint did not plead the need of family members. Paragraph 4 of the plaint (reproduced in the judgment) clearly used the words “for himself and their family members”. This factual error vitiated the High Court’s decision (Para 15).

• Power of Appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC: The Appellate Bench had directed that after amendment, the issue of bonafide requirement be referred to the trial court under Order XLI Rule 25. The High Court held that this power was uncalled for because the trial court had already tried the issue. The Supreme Court disagreed: the Appellate Court can exercise power under Order XLI Rule 25 if it appears essential for the right decision of the suit on merits. This was a discretion exercised by the Appellate Bench, and the High Court should not have interfered (Para 18).

• Legal heirs can continue the suit based on family need: The Court rejected the argument that after the death of the landlord, the suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide need automatically abates or that legal heirs cannot pursue the same cause of action. If the original plaint had pleaded need for the family, the legal heirs can step into the shoes of the landlord and press their own need, subject to proof. The amendment only clarified and particularised that need (Para 17).

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• Article 227 cannot be used to reassess the propriety of an amendment order: The judgment reaffirms the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction. A High Court cannot set aside an order allowing amendment merely because it disagrees with the lower court’s assessment of the pleadings or the merits of the proposed case. It can interfere only if the lower court acted without jurisdiction or in a patently illegal manner.

• Legal heirs of a deceased landlord can, by amendment, introduce their own bonafide need in an ongoing eviction appeal if the original plaint had pleaded family need: The judgment clarifies that the death of the landlord does not necessarily extinguish the cause of action; the suit can continue with the legal heirs, and they can amend the pleadings to reflect their own requirement, provided the original plaint had a general pleading of family need.

• Appellate Court’s discretion under Order XLI Rule 25 is wide: The Court reiterated that the Appellate Court can frame and remit an issue for trial if it is essential for the right decision of the suit on merits, even if the trial court had already decided that issue. This power is not limited only to cases where the trial court omitted to frame or try an issue.

7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

• Examination of the plaint: The Supreme Court reproduced paragraph 4 of the original plaint, noting that it explicitly stated requirement “for himself and their family members”. The High Court had ignored this language and proceeded on the basis that only the landlord’s need was pleaded. This was a clear factual error (Para 15).

• Scope of Article 227 – reference to Raj Kumar Bhatia: The Court quoted extensively from the three‑Judge Bench decision, emphasising that the High Court cannot review or reassess evidence. The Appellate Bench had considered the amendment application, noted that the original plaint pleaded family need, and found no adverse plea or withdrawal of admission. The High Court’s interference was unwarranted (Para 16).

• Subsequent events – application of Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu: The Court held that the death of the landlord and the need of the legal heirs were subsequent events that the court could legitimately consider. The amendment was aimed at bringing the pleadings in line with current realities, which is permissible (Para 17).

• Prejudice to tenants: The Court noted that the Appellate Bench had granted liberty to the tenants to amend their written statement and lead evidence. No irreversible prejudice was caused. The amendment would only avoid multiplicity of proceedings (Para 15, 18).

• Rejection of the “fresh suit” alternative: The High Court had held that the legal heirs could file a fresh suit. The Supreme Court held that this was not a valid reason to refuse amendment. Amendment is meant to avoid multiplicity; forcing the legal heirs to file a fresh suit would cause delay and additional costs, and would also potentially face limitation issues (Para 13, 17).

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the limited scope of Article 227 and the liberal approach to amendment of pleadings. It corrects a clear factual error by the High Court (misreading the plaint). It also respects the discretion of the Appellate Bench and prevents the High Court from substituting its own view on the merits of the amendment. The recognition that legal heirs can continue an eviction suit based on family need is consistent with the object of rent control laws (preventing tenants from taking advantage of the landlord’s death).

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly discuss the principle that the right to eviction on the ground of bonafide need is personal to the landlord and may not survive his death. However, it distinguishes this case because the original plaint had pleaded “family need” – implying that the need was not exclusively personal. The amendment merely particularised that family need. This is a fact‑specific distinction. In cases where the original plaint pleaded only the landlord’s personal need, the legal heirs may not be able to continue or amend.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited by legal heirs in eviction appeals to seek amendment of pleadings to reflect their own bonafide need. It will also be used to resist High Court interference under Article 227 in amendment orders. It reinforces that High Courts should not micro‑manage amendment applications or pre‑judge the likelihood of success.

9. Final Outcome

Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 07.08.2024 in Writ Petition No. 5976 of 2024 is set aside. The order of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dated 05.04.2024 (below Exhibit 38) allowing the amendment of the plaint is restored. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 08.06.2026. The trial court shall proceed in accordance with the directions issued by the Appellate Bench, including the remand under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC. No opinion on merits expressed. No order as to costs.

10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

• By legal heirs of a deceased landlord in an eviction appeal: If the original plaint pleaded bonafide need vaguely or for “family”, file an application to amend the plaint to particularise your own need after the landlord’s death. Cite this judgment to argue that the court should take cognisance of subsequent events and allow the amendment to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Resistance by tenants on the ground that the cause of action abated should be countered by showing that the original plaint had a general pleading covering the family.

• By tenants (defendants) opposing amendment: To resist such an amendment, show that the original plaint pleaded only the personal need of the landlord (e.g., “the plaintiff reasonably requires the premises for his own occupation”), and that the legal heirs are seeking to introduce a completely new cause of action. Also argue that the landlord’s deposition clearly indicated that no other family member needed the premises. The court may then treat the amendment as changing the nature of the suit.

• By High Courts under Article 227: When an amendment order is challenged, examine only whether the lower court acted without jurisdiction or in perverse disregard of law. Do not re‑appreciate the pleadings or the evidence. If the lower court has exercised its discretion reasonably, interference is not justified. This judgment provides a clear warning against overstepping supervisory jurisdiction.

11.  Court Lines

“The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution entered upon the merits of the case which was sought to be set up by the appellant in the amendment. This is impermissible. Whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial.” (Para 16, quoting Raj Kumar Bhatia)

“If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief for the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy.” (Para 17, quoting Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu)

“The High Court misdirected itself by failing to notice the pleadings in paragraph 4 of the plaint that have been reproduced hereinabove. This has resulted in vitiating the impugned order.” (Para 15)

“The Appellate Bench did not commit an error when it exercised its jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code and referred the issue of bonafide requirement to the Trial Court pursuant to the plaint being amended.” (Para 18)

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For the legal heirs (appellants/landlord’s successors): As soon as the original landlord dies during the pendency of an eviction appeal, immediately file an application for impleadment and then an application to amend the plaint. In the amendment application, clearly state that the original plaint had pleaded bonafide need for the family, and that the legal heirs’ necessity (e.g., professional or residential requirement) is a continuation of that same family need. Attach evidence of the need (e.g., professional qualifications, current office space constraints). Argue that the amendment will not change the nature of the suit but will only particularise the subsequent events. Cite this judgment to resist any contention that the cause of action has abated. Also, request the Appellate Court to frame a fresh issue on bonafide need and remand it to the trial court for evidence, if necessary. If the High Court interferes under Article 227, appeal to the Supreme Court.

For the tenants (respondents): To oppose such an amendment, examine the original plaint carefully. If the original plaint used words like “the plaintiff reasonably requires the premises for his own use” without any reference to family members, argue that the need was personal and the death of the landlord terminates the cause of action. Also, point to the landlord’s deposition (if available) where he may have admitted that no other family member needed the premises. Argue that an amendment introducing a new bonafide need after his death is a new cause of action not permitted under Order VI Rule 17. If the amendment is allowed, challenge it before the High Court under Article 227, but note that the High Court’s interference will be limited. The better strategy may be to oppose the amendment on the ground of delay and prejudice, and to request costs. If the amendment is allowed, amend the written statement and lead evidence to rebut the claim.