1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4793 OF 2009 Shirish Ramnath Sarda ...Petitioner vs. The Manager, Bank of India & Anr. ...respondents Mr.Jaydeep S. Deo for the petitioner Mr.O.A.Das for respondents nos.1 and 2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 P.C. 1 I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Considering the narrow controversy involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2 The petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed a suit against 1) Manager-Bank of India 2) Chairman-Bank of India. The suit was filed for possession of the suit premises and for compensation. According to the case of the petitioner, the suit premises was let out to the Bank of India, Bombay and same was being used for a branch of the said bank. Though the aforesaid officers of Bank were impleaded as parties, the Bank of India was not impleaded as a party. 3 An application was made by the petitioner at Exh.50 seeking permission to amend the cause title of the suit by amending the description of the defendants. The petitioner desired to carry out amendment for showing the Bank of India as a defendant through the Manager and Chairman. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected on the ground that the application was moved belatedly at the stage when the suit was fixed for 2 final arguments. It was held that the petitioner has slept over his rights for such a long time. 4 The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the petitioner raised objection regarding maintainability of the suit by filing the written statement. However, an application for amendment was belatedly made by the petitioner on 15 th April 2009. He submitted that the trial court was justified in rejecting the said application. 5 I have considered the submissions. The averments made in the plaint and in particular paragraph 2 thereof clearly show that the petitioner intended to file a suit against Bank of India. In fact, the said averments show that the premises was let out to the Bank of India and the said Bank was using the same for one of its branches. Instead of specifically impleading Bank of India as a defendant, the petitioner impleaded its Manager and Chairman as defendants. Therefore, there appears to be an inadvertent error on the part of the petitioner while drafting the plaint. In the application for amendment, it was pointed out that even the Manager of the Bank of India was examined as witness and he admitted that the suit was filed against the bank. 6 In the cross examination of Mr.P.T.Bhangre, Manager of Bank of India, he admitted that he was deposing on behalf of the bank. He admitted that his bank had taken the suit premises on rent. He accepted that the period of agreement was already over. He accepted that he had informed on behalf of the bank that the bank will vacate after getting alternative accommodation. Considering these aspects, though the application for amendment was moved belatedly, the same ought to have been allowed. 3 The respondents can be compensated by ordering payment of costs. The learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Advocate for the respondents in the court and the Advocate for the respondents has accepted the same without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents. 7 Hence I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and Order dated 24 th April 2009 is quashed and set aside. The application made by the petitioner at Exhibit 50 is allowed. ii) The petitioner will carry out amendment within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order by the trial court. iii) After amendment is carried out, the court will issue a summons to the Bank and thereafter will proceed with the suit in accordance with law. iv) All contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are expressly kept open. v) As recorded earlier, the petitioner has paid costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents. vi) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. JUDGE