Introduction:

In a significant decision, the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, allowed an illiterate pardanashin lady to amend her written statement in a property dispute case. The court set aside the rejection of her amendment plea by the appellate court, emphasizing her limited understanding of legal pleadings. The case involves a suit filed by the petitioner’s brother, seeking possession and a declaration related to a property dispute. The court’s ruling delves into the complexities faced by an illiterate defendant in comprehending legal proceedings.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, an illiterate pardanashin lady, faced a property dispute initiated by her brother, the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged fraudulent mutation entries and sought to declare them null and void. The petitioner, through her initial written statement, claimed ownership based on a gift deed. However, due to insufficient pleadings, the Trial Court rejected her contentions. In her appeal, she sought to amend the written statement to provide more details about the gift deed. The appellate court rejected the amendment, citing lack of diligence in the initial pleadings. The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that her illiteracy hindered her understanding of legal intricacies.

Court’s Judgement:

The Bombay High Court, led by Justice BP Deshpande, acknowledged the petitioner’s limitations in understanding legal pleadings and highlighted the need for a pardanashin lady to grasp the nuances of the case. The proposed amendments aimed to clarify details about the gift deed without altering the nature of the defence. The court emphasized that the illiteracy and pardanashin status justified the amendment, ensuring justice in the legal process. Refusing the amendment could result in injustice or multiple litigations. The court recognized the absence of mala fide intention behind the amendments and deemed them necessary for a just decision. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, subject to nominal costs.