Amendment Of Pleadings Does Not Immunise Party From Consequences Of Earlier False Pleadings: Bombay High Court

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Rent Control Authority rejecting objections raised by the petitioner to the execution of an eviction decree, where the petitioner claimed possession over the property based on an alleged oral assurance by the tenant.

A Bench of Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar, while stating that “mere earning leave to amend pleadings does not ipso facto immune a party from the risk and liability incurred by earlier pleadings”, saddled costs of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner.

Advocate Mukul S. Kulkarni appeared for the petitioner, while the State was represented by BB Gunja, AGP, and Advocate Mahesh R. Sonawane appeared for the contesting respondent.

Background

The matter arose out of execution proceedings relating to an eviction decree passed in favour of the landlord, which had remained unexecuted for a considerable period. The petitioner, a third party to the original tenancy proceedings, sought to obstruct execution by claiming possession based on an alleged oral assurance from the tenant that the property would be sold to him.

The petitioner initiated multiple proceedings challenging the execution, including writ petitions and applications before different forums, and sought to set aside execution orders passed by the Rent Control Authority.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had had the property and was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before execution of the decree.

The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner was a stranger to the proceedings with no legal right over the property, and that the litigation initiated by him was a calculated attempt to delay execution of a lawful decree.

Court’s Observation

The Court, upon examining the record, found that the petitioner had no legal right or authority to occupy the property and that his claim was based solely on an alleged oral assurance, which had no legal sanctity. It was observed that such an arrangement could not bind the landlord or confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner.

“One must not lose sight of the fact that the 'subject-matter property' is a leasehold property owned by the C.I.D.C.O., a special town planning authority. Even a lawful leaseholder/ Lessee also can not transfer the leasehold rights without the permission of the C.I.D.C.O. The Petitioner tries to justify his possession on the pretext that a word was given to him on behalf of the tenant that the tenanted premises shall be sold to him by the tenant. Such an agreement absolutely doesn’t bear any legal sanctity”, the Court remarked.

The Court further noted that despite being granted multiple opportunities, the petitioner had failed to produce any material to substantiate his claim of lawful possession. It observed that “falling deficit to adduce adequate evidence is one thing and having absolutely no evidence is another,” and held that the petitioner’s case fell in the latter category.

The Court took note of the conduct of the petitioner in making false statements regarding the pendency of proceedings before another forum. It found that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that such proceedings had already been withdrawn and had made incorrect averments before both the authority and the Court to secure favourable orders.

The Court observed that such conduct amounted to abuse of the process of law and was contrary to the principles of equity and fairness, noting that a litigant cannot take advantage of his own wrong. It further held that subsequent amendment of pleadings to correct such false statements does not cure the initial misrepresentation, observing that mere earning leave to amend pleadings does not ipso facto immunise a party from the risk and liability incurred by earlier pleadings.

The Court emphasised that suppression of material facts and false pleadings strike at the root of the judicial process and cannot be condoned. It relied on settled principles that a litigant approaching the Court must do so with clean hands and must not mislead the Court.

The Court also expressed concern over prolonged non-execution of the eviction decree, observing that execution is the “end and fruit of law,” and that failure to execute decrees promptly undermines the justice delivery system.

Conclusion

The High Court held that the writ petition was devoid of merit and constituted an abuse of process, warranting dismissal with costs.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and costs of ₹25,000 were imposed on the petitioner, along with directions to the authorities to execute the possession warrant within a stipulated period.

Cause Title: Self Bhaskar Jagannath Gadekar v. The Deputy Collector & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:13547)

Click here to read/download Judgment