1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 34. WP/8328/2009 ( YETIRAJM GALAYYA NALLEWAR V/S THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS.) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.J.Salunke, Adv., for the petitioner. Mrs. S.D.Shelke, AGP for the respondent State. Mr. Amit S.Deshpande, Adv., for respondent no.4. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:22/10/2010 1. Heard. In a suit for perpetual injunction and declaration at the stage of evidence the plaintiff sought amendment. Rejection by the learned Judge by order dt. 9.10.2009 is questioned. The learned Judge has observed in paragraph no.6 of the order that the documents of Municipal Council illustrate that the property is already acquired to the extent of 18 gunthas whereas the plaintiff asserts right to the extent of 16 gunthas. The affidavit in reply 2 of the Chief Executive Officer, and annexed to it, a map also illustrate about the acquisition of the property to which the plaintiff asserts the right. Without adverting to these merits, though canvassed by Mr.Salunke, learned Counsel, the fact remains, the nature of the amendment sought is changing the entire context of the matter, and it is impermissible. Whatever other remedies are available to the plaintiff, he may exhaust the same against the respondent no.4. The order rejecting the amendment application is in tune with the scheme of Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. Writ Petition lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/8328-09wp