The Supreme Court has held that courts cannot delve into the merits of a case while deciding an application for amendment of a plaint and the legal heirs of a deceased landlord are entitled to bring on record subsequent events, including their own bona fide requirement, through amendment.
The bench of Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar while deciding an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, courts must not assess whether the claim will ultimately succeed. Entering into merits at this stage is impermissible.
The judgment came in Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh v. Natwarlal Shamji Gada, where the apex court set aside a Bombay High Court order that had rejected an amendment sought by the legal heirs of a landlord in an eviction suit.
The dispute arose from an eviction suit filed in 2005 by the original landlord seeking eviction of tenants on multiple grounds, including arrears of rent, unauthorized alterations, subletting, and bona fide requirement for personal and family use.
However, the Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2016, holding that the landlord failed to establish bona fide need. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord passed away in 2022, and his legal heirs were substituted as parties.
Subsequently, the legal heirs sought to amend the plaint to include their own requirement—specifically, the need of the landlord’s wife (an advocate) and son (intending to start medical practice).
The Appellate Bench allowed the amendment, noting that the original plaint already referred to the requirement of the landlord and his family members. It held that the amendment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and permitted both parties to lead fresh evidence.
However, the Bombay High Court set aside this order, reasoning that the original landlord had only established his own need during evidence. After his death, that need no longer survived. The legal heirs were attempting to introduce a new and inconsistent case. They could instead file a fresh eviction suit.
The Court held that the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, cannot re-appreciate evidence or reassess factual findings. Its role is limited to jurisdictional errors, not merits review.
Buy Now: E-Compilation of Supreme Court Judgements – March 2026
The Supreme Court noted that the original plaintiff clearly pleaded for “himself and his family members.” The High Court’s conclusion that only the landlord’s personal need was pleaded was factually incorrect.
The Court reaffirmed that subsequent developments—such as the death of a party—can be brought on record if they have a bearing on the relief. Legal heirs can continue proceedings and assert their own bona fide need through amendment.
The Court rejected the High Court’s view that a landlord’s bona fide need automatically ends upon death. It held that such determination depends on facts of each case and cannot be applied as a rigid rule.
The Supreme Court restored the Appellate Bench’s order allowing amendment and directed that the issue of bona fide requirement be reconsidered by the Trial Court after giving both parties an opportunity to amend pleadings and lead evidence.
The parties have been directed to appear before the Trial Court on June 8, 2026, and the matter will now proceed on merits.
Case Details
Case Title: Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh Versus Natwarlal Shamji Gada
Citation: JURISHOUR-957-SC-2026
Case No.: SLP (C) NO.8991 OF 2025
Date: 24/04/2026
