SSM 1 54.wp.5723.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5723 OF 2010 Shri. Ashok Vasudeo Kashid ....Petitioner Versus Vasudeo Hanumant Kashid and ors. ....Respondents _______ Mr. U. B. Nighot for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajay A. Joshi for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C.: Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 31 st March, 2010, vide which an application filed by the present Petitioner for amendment of the plaint, came to be rejected. 4. The Petitioner has filed a suit for partition. In the said suit, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed a Written Statement contending SSM 2 54.wp.5723.10 therein that the suit was bad in law and suffered from non­joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as the sister of the Petitioner namely Sau. Babita Dnyaneshwar Surwase was not impleaded as a party Respondent. 5. The application came to be filed by the present Petitioner for amendment so as to add Sau. Babita Dnyaneshwar Surwase as a party Respondent. The same is rejected on the ground that the intention of the Plaintiff in seeking the amendment of the Plaint does not seem to be bonafide and genuine. It was further contended that moreover, his attempt to seek the amendment to the plaint has the ulterior motive of prolonging the litigation. Hence this Petition. 6. Mr. Nighot, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the amendment sought to be incorporated was prior to commencement of trial and as such the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the same. 7. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the SSM 3 54.wp.5723.10 Respondent, on the contrary, submits that the legal rights have been accrued in favour of the Respondent and the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application for amendment. It is a settled principle law that the Court have to take a liberal view in grant of amendment. Only rider is regarding amendment which is sought to be incorporated up to the commencement of trial. Admittedly, in the present case, the trial is yet to commence asmuch as from the impugned order it would be seen that only issues are framed. In so far as the prejudice caused to the Respondent is concerned, that can be compensated by directing the Petitioner to deposit sum of Rs.5,000/­ towards costs. 8. In that view of the matter, Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). 9. The Petitioner shall deposit the costs of Rs.5,000/­ in the Trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit of costs, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 will be at liberty to withdraw the same. If the Petitioner fails to deposit the costs as aforesaid within SSM 4 54.wp.5723.10 stipulated period, the Petition will automatically stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)