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

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.