Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6270 of 2008 Mr. Narayan Chenu Rao ...Petitioner V/s. The M.M.C. & Ors. ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6271 OF 2008 M/s. Prabhadevi Papar Mart ...Petitioner V/s. The Municipal Commissioner & anr. ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6272 OF 2008 Smt. Suman A. Ingalkar ...Petitioner V/s. The Municipal Commissioner & anr. ...Respondent ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6274 OF 2008 Shri Lalji B. Dube ...Petitioner V/s. The Municipal Commissioner & anr. ...Respondent Mr. Punalekar Sanjeev i/b. A.S.Naik for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Rao i/b. Pravin Mehta and Mithin & co. for respondent no.2 Mr. A.J.Bhor for respondent no.1 CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. I find no good reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed 2 by the Court below in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the effect of the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation though not between the same parties need not be a part of the pleading. 2. The argument of the petitioner that unless the petitioner was to plead the factual position accepted by defendant no.2 in Appeal from Order No. 452/2008, the petitioner will not be in a position to lead evidence in relation to the fact that the defendant no.2 has admitted that the petitioner is tenant in respect of the suit premises. To my mind, it is unnecessary to amend the pleadings to incorporate the said fact. In as much as, the suit is against Notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act-in which the question of whether the petitioner is infact the tenant of defendant no.2 is not relevant. More so, defendant no.2 in the written-statement filed before the Trial Court has already placed on record list of tenants/occupants in which name of the petitioner appears. The fact remains that the issue as to whether the petitioner is tenant of defendant no.2 is not relevant for the decision in the present suit which is limited to action under Section 351 of the Act. Thus understood, it is unnecessary to place the proposed amendment on record which position in any case is spelt out from the 3 pleadings and documents filed by defendant no.2 in the present Suit. Hence, the above petitions are disposed of accordingly. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]