kbp 1 7942-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7942 OF 2009 Shanti Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Harish Raghavindra Rao and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel i/b.M/s.Ghanekar and Co., for petitioners. Mr.P.G.Karande, for respondent nos.1 to 11. ........ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 23 rd SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. 2] The petitioner is the second defendant. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order by which an application for amendment of plaint made by the original plaintiffs (first to eleventh respondents herein) has been allowed. By the amendment, the petitioner has been impleaded as a party – second defendant. An averment has been added to the plaint stating that the name of the original defendant has been deleted from the revenue record in respect of the suit property and the name of the petitioner society has been mutated in the revenue record. A contention is sought to be raised that the first defendant and the petitioner are jointly and kbp 2 7942-09.sxw severally responsible for executing a proper agreement with the original plaintiff as provided under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act, 1963. A notice of motion was taken out by the petitioner for recalling / for setting aside the said order which has been rejected by the trial court. 3] The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the amendment application was moved at a stage when recording of evidence of the original plaintiffs was completed and the first defendant was about to lead the evidence. He invited my attention to the affidavit in support of the chamber summons. He pointed out that there is absolutely no explaination in the affidavit for the respondents coming out with an amendment in the year 2009 in a suit filed in the year 2002. It is submitted that considering the stage at which the application for amendment was made, it was necessary for the original plaintiffs to explain the delay and the affidavit in support does not explain the delay. 4] I have carefully considered the submissions. It is an admitted position that the suit is not governed by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code brought on the statute book on 1 st July, 2002. By the amendment, the petitioner society has been impleaded as a party defendant and an averment is incorporated in the plaint that the petitioner and the original defendant are jointly and severally responsible for discharging statutory obligations. 5] The proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit. The amendment was made as the name of the petitioner was mutated in revenue kbp 3 7942-09.sxw record of the suit property The petitioner can always file a written statement and raise all permissible contentions including the contention regarding the bar of limitation. 6] Hence, no case for interference is made out in this writ petition. Writ petition is rejected. If written statement is not filed by the petitioner till today, the same shall be filed within eight weeks from today. ( A.S.OKA, J. )