1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4688 OF 2009 Shri Dilip Sandipani Pore. .. Petitioner Vs M/s. Sagar Prabhale & Associates & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Dilip Bodake for the Petitioner. Shri A.D. Thorat for the Respondent No.1. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Notice for final disposal was issued on 4th August, 2009. The notice issued was confined to an amendment sought as against the 1st Respondent. 2. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff and the Respondents are the Defendants. A suit is filed by the Petitioner for injunction restraining the Respondents from creating any third party interests in respect of the property described in Clauses (a) to (d) of Paragraph 1 of the Plaint. In the said suit, an application for amendment of Plaint was made by the Petitioner. The first part of the amendment is for seeking impleadment of Assistant Engineer of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited as the 5th Defendant. Paragraph 8-A was sought to be added for contending that the as per the development agreement, the 1st Respondent was under an obligation to provide 2 electricity connection to Flat No.9 on the 2nd floor and to the common Hall on the ground floor. A mandatory injunction was sought to be claimed against the first Respondent as well as the proposed Defendant. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the suit is filed essentially for claiming injunction on the basis of the development agreement dated 15th October, 2002. He submitted that the Petitioner wants to claim mandatory injunction against the 1st Respondent for compelling him for providing electricity supply on the basis of the terms and conditions of the said agreement and, therefore, the amendment ought to have been allowed. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that no interference is called for. 4. Perusal of the order dated 4th August, 2009 passed by this Court shows that the prayer for amendment relating to addition of Assistant Engineer of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited as a Defendant has been already rejected by this Court. As far as the 1st Respondent is concerned, all that the Petitioner wants to contend is that under the agreement for development, the 1st Respondent was under an obligation to provide certain premises to the Petitioner and was also under an obligation to provide the supply of electricity to the said premises. The allegation sought to be made by amendment is that the 1st 3 Respondent has not performed his obligation and therefore mandatory injunction is sought against the 1st Respondent. 5. The reasons recorded by the Trial Court for rejecting the application are completely erroneous. Reliefs claimed by way of amendment are based on the said agreement which is subject matter of the suit. Therefore, the amendment insofar as it relates to the relief against the 1st Respondent is concerned, will have to be allowed. The Trial Court will have to direct the Petitioner to submit a revised text of the amendment for incorporating averments against the 1st Respondent and for claiming relief of mandatory injunction against the 1st Respondent. The revised text will have to be submitted as reference to 5th Defendant in the text of the amendment will have to be deleted. The amendment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 6. Hence, I pass the following order. (a) The impugned order dated 17th February, 2009 is quashed and set aside. (b) The application made by the Petitioner at Exhibit – 70 is partly allowed. (c) Amendment which relates to the 1st Respondent is hereby allowed. 4 (d) The Petitioner will submit amended text of the proposed amendment by incorporating changes in proposed Paragraph 8A and Prayer A-1 set out in the application at Exhibit -70 in terms of this order. (e) The Trial Court will permit the Petitioner to carry out amendment within a period of two weeks from the date on which the writ of this Court is received by the Trial Court. (f) It will be open for the Respondents to file additional written statement to the amended plaint within a period of eight weeks from the date on which a copy of the amended plaint is served to them. (g) It will be open for the Petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings against the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. (h) The Petition is partly allowed with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J)