1 WP 4174/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4174 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Amarendra Mishra for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay J. Hegde for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 26th July 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20 April 2010 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, allowing the respondent’s application for amendment of the plaint. 3. The respondent filed a suit for injunction restraining the petitioner from disturbing his 2 WP 4174/10 possession over the suit premises wherein he was running a hotel and bar. According to the respondent, during the pendency of the suit the petitioner forcibly threw out the respondent and, therefore, he sought an amendment of the plaint so as to claim back the possession. The application has been allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment changes the nature of the suit for injunction to that of possession and, therefore, amendment should not have been allowed. In my view, the petitioner cannot take advantage of her own wrong. If during the pendency of the suit the petitioner throws out the respondent from the suit premises, the respondent is not required to file a fresh suit, but can certainly amend the plaint claiming back the possession by way of a mandatory injunction for repossession as has been done in the present case. This change in 3 WP 4174/10 the suit is required to be made on account of high handed action on the part of the petitioner of taking law into her own hands and throwing out the respondent. Consequently, I see no error in the order passed by the trial court. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)