1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 3697 /2007 (Prakasdhchandra Mangilal Mathariya and another vs. Murari s/o Tejmal Soni) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. CORAM: Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED: 16th JANUARY, 2008. *** Heard Shri A.J. Thakkar, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri A.B.Mirza, for Respondent-sole. By this Petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Civil Judge J.D. Telhara on 17.7.2007 allowing the amendment application filed by the respondent, at Exh.26. Perused the application for amendment of the plaint, reply filed thereto, as also the order passed by Civil Judge J.D. Telhara on 17.7.2007. The Respondent had filed suit against the petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction stating therein that the petitioners had no right, title or interest to make the proposed construction just adjacent to the southern and western side 2 wall of the house of the respondent. The petitioners filed written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the petitioners in the written statement that the construction was strictly in accordance with the map which was duly sanctioned by the Municipal Council, Telhara. Since during the pendency of the petition yet another map was got sanctioned by the petitioners from the Municipal Council,Telhara, the respondent filed an application at Exh.26 for amendment of the plaint as the petitioners desired to plead that the revised map was also sanctioned by the Municipal Council by ignoring the mandatory provision of the Building Bye-laws as contemplated under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act. The respondent had, therefore, desired to bring the changed circumstances on record by filing the amendment application. The amendment application though strongly opposed by the petitioners was allowed by the Civil Judge J.D.Telhara, by the impugned order dated 17.7.2007. The trial Court was clearly justified in allowing the amendment application as. according to the plaintiff/respondent, the revised sanctioned map was also against the provisions of Building Bye-Laws. The plaintiff/respondent wanted to incorporate in the plaint the subsequent development which occurred after filing of 3 the suit. According to the trial Court, the proposed amendment did not in any manner change the nature of the suit. The Court was justified in holding that the proposed amendment was necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties and it could not be said that the cause of action in the original plaint and the proposed amendment were entirely different. The reasons recorded by the Civil Judge, J.D. Telhara in the impugned order cannot be faulted with. The order does not suffer from any error whatsoever, much less, jurisdictional error. The petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE sahare