1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7554 OF 2006 Rajbali R. Yadav. ..Petitioner. V/s. Chandrabali R. Yadav & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Atul G. Damble for Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Singh for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant pleadings and documents on record. 2. After having considered all aspects of the matter, I am in agreement with the stand taken on behalf of the Respondents that no fault can be found with the view taken by the trial Court. The view taken by the trial Court is founded on the material already on record. The material would clearly belie the stand of the Petitioner that the description of the suit property as Hut No.REG(C) 470-1/1A was on account of clerical error. My attention has been rightly invited to the communication sent on behalf of the Petitioner to appropriate authorities such as 2 Assistant General Manager, B.S.E.S Ltd. as well as Assistant General Manager, Reliance Energy Ltd. dated 9th September, 1999 and 20th November, 2004 on pages 42 and 45 of the additional paper book filed by the Respondents respectively. Even in the said communications which are sent in anterior point of time to the filing of the Suit, the description of the property in which the Petitioner asserts right is described as REG(C) 470-1/1A, as is described in the plaint. If it is so, description in the plaint is not on account of clerical error, as is projected by the Petitioner. That is the only ground pressed into service before the lower Court. Besides, there is merits in the finding recorded by the Court below that the Petitioner has not produced any particular documents showing real census number of the suit premises. Whereas the premises, which are numbered as REG(C) 479-1/1A is admeasuring 18 ft. x 33 ft. The Petitioner on affidavit however, has given area of the suit premises as only 16 ft. x 12 ft. which is materially different from the area of House No.REG(C) 479-1/1A. 3. Taking over all view of the matter, the Court below was justified in rejecting the request of the Petitioners for amendment of the plaint for the 3 reasons recorded in the impugned Judgment. No interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted in the fact situation of the present case against such discretionary and well-considered order of the trial Court. Hence, dismissed. 4. Needless to observe that the Interim Order passed in this Petition stands vacated forthwith. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)