1 dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6166 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Ajay A. Joshi for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Aradhye for respondent no.2. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : 11.12.2008 P.C. The petitioner/plaintiff moved this amendment application which was rejected by the impugned order dated 16.7.2008. In the description of the property city survey no.4126 and 4125 are mentioned referring to the premises in question. The suit is for simpliciter injunction. The petitioner/plaintiff in view of subsequent development, by this amendment bringing those facts on record. There is no dispute that these are subsequent developments. Once the properties are involved and because subsequent development it changes the nature, then the events if brought on record, just cannot be 2 overlooked, because it is necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter. In view of this, I see there is no reason not to allow this amendment application. Normally there must be justification for moving such application at this late stage of the proceedings. In the present case, subsequent events that itself is the foundation and, therefore, it is wrong to hold that by this amendment new subject matter is brought on record. The nature of suit, in my view, is not likely to be changed. However, keeping all points and pleas open, the present application Exhibit ‘91’ is allowed. The petition is accordingly allowed subject to costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid within two weeks as a condition precedent to contesting defendants. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]