1 wp3041.04.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 3041 of 2004 WITH Civil Application No. 2288 of 2007 IN Writ Petition No. 3041 of 2004 Manjulabai Karbhari Ugale ...Petitioner v/s. Santu Sakharam Ugale deceased through Tulsabai Santu Ugale & ors. ...Respondents Mr. V.Z. Kankaria for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. Hardas for the respondents. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- FEBRUARY 18, 2011. P.C. This Petition is taken up for admission. 2. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 26th February, 2004 vide which the Application filed by the respondent- plaintiff Tulsabai for amendment of plaint came to be allowed. Shri 2 wp3041.04.sxw Kankaria, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that by way of amendment since the Respondent is permitted to be added, the entire share in the property would be changed and as such it would amount to changing the nature of the suit. He, therefore, submits that the amendment as sought ought not to have been allowed by the learned trial Court. 3. Shri Hardas, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the contrary submits that learned trial Court has rightly allowed the Application and requested for dismissal of the Petition. 4. By way of amendment which is allowed, the plaintiff-Tulsabai has requested for impleading her son Madhuukar as party-defendant. It is the contention of the plaintiff that said Madhukar has released all his rights in the name of his real parents i.e. plaintiff. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court has been exercised in a perverse manner. No interference is warranted. Rejected. 5. Taking into consideration that suit is of the year 1991, hearing of the 3 wp3041.04.sxw suit is expedited. 6. In view of disposal of Petition, nothing survives for consideration in the civil application. The same is disposed of accordingly. (B.R. GAVAI, J)