1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4601 OF 2009 Sanjay Dhanraj Patil, age: 35 years, Occ: Agril., through G.P.A. Shri Dhanraj Fakira Patil, age: 77 years, Occ: Agril.., R/o Dondwade, Tal. Chopda, at present R/o Vidyavihar Colony, Plot No.20, Chopda, Dist.Jalgaon. Petitioner Versus 1 Pating Bajirao Patil, age: 68 years, Occ: Agril., 2 Vilas Patingrao Patil, age: 38 years, Occ: Agril., 3 The Collector, Jalgaon. 4 Dattatray Tryambak Patil, age: 65 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Dondwade, Tal.Chopda, District Jalgaon. Respondents Mr.R.R.Mantri, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amol S. Sawant, advocate for Respondents. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 22nd March, 2010. P.C.: 1 Application tendered by original plaintiff seeking amendment to the plaint, thereby requesting first appellate Court to permit him to 2 incorporate additional prayer has been turned down by the first appellate Court in view of the order passed on 10.06.2009 and said order, passed by first appellate Court, is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 Original plaintiff – petitioner herein presented suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 86/2003 claiming declaration in respect of recording revenue entries by revenue officials. Plaintiff also sought restraint order against defendants thereby restraining them from creating third party interest in respect of suit property. 3 It transpires that suit presented by plaintiff was dismissed by trial Court and appeal came to be presented to the first appellate Court raising exception to the decree passed by trial Court. At appellate stage, petitioner – plaintiff wants to amend prayer clause in the plaint and intends to seek relief in respect of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. 4 I have perused the application as well as impugned order. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner contends that provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not be invoked in the instant case as amendment sought is in respect of prayer clause. 5 The argument is not acceptable for the reason that prayer clause is part of plaint. There is also no reason stated as to what are the circumstances which prevented petitioner – plaintiff from claiming relief, which is being sought at appellate stage. Considering the relevant circumstances, first appellate Court has rightly rejected the prayer. I am of the view that in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is required to be caused in the order 3 passed by the first appellate Court. Petition is devoid of substance. 6 Hence, Writ Petition stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp460109