[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8057 OF 2008 Nanasaheb S. Gaikwad & Ors. .... Petitioners Vs. Kashinath B. Gaikwad & Ors. .... Respondents Shri Siddharth R. Ronghe for the Petitioners. Shri Sandeep Phatak for Respondent Nos.1, 2a, 2c, 3a, 3b & 4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: DECEMBER 12, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: The petitioners have challenged the grant of amendment to the plaintiffs basically on the ground that it changes the nature of the suit and it is inconsistent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied on number of authorities in support of his submission. There is no quarrel so far as this legal position is concerned. This is a case where at interlocutory stage the plaintiffs have filed the amendment application. The basic prayer in the suit is that the sanction, construction and all the actions arising out the same be declared as bad in law, unauthorised and without permission. The said suit, therefore, is with wider reliefs. In view of the amendment which is nothing but to add more documents and materials on record, apart from the subsequent events [2] and basically subsequent discovery of some events which, in my view, at this stage, if the plaintiffs want to bring on record and as the learned Judge after considering the same submission granted the said amendment in the interest of justice, I see there is no reason to interfere with the same. It is desirable that all parties should get full opportunity to put their case. At the same stroke, if the amendment is allowed, the defendants are also entitled to put their case/defence, whatever available to them, in accordance with law. Therefore, keeping all the points open, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order. The petition is dismissed. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wp8057.8 sjs/D8wp8057.8 sjs/D8wp8057.8