1 WP7751-11 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7751 OF 2011 Ramchandra Somnath Udpikar ... Petitioner Versus Pandurang Dyaneshwar Arradhye ... Respondent Mr. Sachin Deokar a/w Mr. V.V. Purwant for the petitioner CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 22nd September, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The respondent herein had filed Special Civil Suit No.19 of 2010 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur. After filing of the Suit, the respondent filed an application for amendment of the plaint at Exh.26. That application was granted by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur by an order dated 22nd July, 2011. Against this order, the present petition is filed. 3. I have extensively heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is noticed that the aforesaid Suit came to be filed on the strength of agreement to sale, which is stated to have been executed in favour of the respondent and some figures regarding consideration and payment 2 WP7751-11 made are mentioned therein. The respondent wanted to amend certain part of the plaint so as to bring on record the correct figures as regards the consideration paid, earnest money received, etc. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, looked into all the aspects and has granted amendment. 4. After having considered the submissions advanced across the Bar, I am inclined to observe that the amendment so applied was in order to place on record, the correct facts and looking to the text of the application for amendment, at the first blush, it looks as if the respondent wants to bring out a new case on record. In my view, if the respondent wants to correct portion of the plaint to bring on record the factual aspects in correct manner, surely that can be done and that does not affect the frame of the Suit. In fact, it was sought to be argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the contents of the agreement to sale and contents of the plaint, if amended, may go to show that there is variance between the two. If that is the situation, it will possibly help the petitioner. If the respondent wants that the plaint should be amended in a particular fashion, that can be granted. Needles to mention that the petitioner will get a chance to file written statement if not so filed or file an additional written statement on account of the 3 WP7751-11 amendment to the plaint. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, no interference is required in the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2011. Accordingly the petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. (R. Y. GANOO, J.)