1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6952 OF 2010 1 Sujanrao s/o Dadarao Lagad age 47 years, occ. agril r/o Telgaon Bk. Tq. Wadawani Dist. Beed. 2 Bhanudas s/o Dadarao Lagad age 67 years, occ. agril r/o Telgaon Bk. Tq. Wadawani Dist. Beed. 3 Sopan s/o Dadarao lagad age 62 years, occ. agril r/o Telgaon Bk., Tq. Wadawani Dist. Beed. 4 Ajan s/o Dadarao Lagad age 57 years, occ. agril r/o Telgaon Bk. Tq. Wadawani Dist. Beed. All through the authorised signaory and General Power of Attorney Shri Bankat s/o Sopanrao Lagad age 33 years, occ.agril r/o Telgaon Bk. Tq. Dharur Dist. Beed. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1 Pandharinath s/o Ramchandra Lagad age 65 years, occ. agril r/o Telgaon Bk. Tq. Dharur Dist. Beed. 2 2 Radhakisan s/o Ramchandra Lagad age 57 years, occ. agril r/o Telgaon Bk. Tq. Dharur Dist. Beed. 3 Rohidas s/o Rachandra Lagad age 47 years, occ. agril r/o Telgaon Bk. Tq. Dharur Dist. Beed. 4 Vitthal s/o Sitaram Lagad age 47 years, occ. agril r/o Telgao, Bk., Tq. Dharur Dist. Beed. 5 Govind s/o Kashinath Mundhe age 57 years, occ. agril r/o Telgaon Bk. Tq. Dharur Dist. Beed. 6 S.G. Hajare age 47 years, occ. service Talathi Sajja, Telgaon Bk. Tq. Dharur Dist. Beed. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.J. Salunke, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.S. Kudale, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 14 th OCTOBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 3 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 An application tendered by the petitioners seeking leave to amend the plaint has been turned down by the trial court only on the ground that the application is tendered at late stage i.e. after completion of recording of evidence. 4 Plaintiffs instituted the suit being Regular Civil Suit no. 118/2006 claiming declaration of ownership in respect of land to the extent of 10 acres and 26 gunthas out of gat no. 247 of village Talegaon. The petitioners have also sought restrain order in respect of said property in the suit. It is the contention of the petitioners that out of total area of 10 acres and 26 gunthas an area to the extent of 74 gunthas was acquired by the State Government which was not taken into account while making prayer in the plaint. It is thus contended that the petitioners may be permitted to restrict their claim in respect of an area to the extent of 8 acres and 32 gunthas and necessary amendment be permitted. As stated above, the trial court has refused to accord permission to seek amendment in respect of description of 4 the property contained in the plaint as well as the prayer clause. 5 It is not disputed that an area to the extent of 74 gunthas has been acquired and in any eventuality the plaintiffs cannot claim relief in that regard. Even if amendment is permitted at belated stage, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the parties. Even otherwise, without seeking amendment, it would be permissible for the plaintiffs to restrict their claim to lessor area than what is recorded in the prayer clause. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of Sundar Kumar Sharma vrs. Makhan Singh reported in 2009 AIR SCW 6131. Considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment, plaintiffs / petitioners can be permitted to amend the pleadings subject to payment of cost. Plaintiffs / petitioners shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the defendants. The amount of cost shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to condition in respect of deposit of cost as directed, the impugned order passed below exh. 125 in Regular Civil Suit no. 118/2006 dt. 3-7-2010 is quashed and set aside and the application tendered by the petitioner at exh. 125 shall be deemed to have been allowed. Parties are at liberty to make necessary application as a consequence of according permission to amend the plaint. Rule is accordingly made absolute. 5 6 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp6952.10.odt