1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7176 OF 2008. Karbhari Dhondiba Bhure and others. ... Petitioners. Versus Bapurao Bhimaji Sonwane and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.L.L.Vakil, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.P.R.Adkine, advcate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 15.02.2010. PER COURT 1. Challenge in this petition is to order rendered by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Vaijapur on amendment application (Exh.50) filed in suit (RCS No.219/2006). By the impugned 2 order, the learned Civil Judge rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioners, who are the original plaintiffs. 2. The petitioners filed suit (RCS No. 219/2006) for perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents from causing obstruction in their lawful possession of agricultural land bearing Gat No.164 which was originally S.No.108, situated at village Bhadli under Vaijapur Tahsil. They asserted that the Respondents were trying to obliterate the eastern Bandh of their land and to encroach over part of their land Gat No.164. The Respondents have filed counter claim alleging that the petitioners have committed encroachment to the extent of part of their land. 3. The petitioners filed amendment application alleging that the boundary of eastern side was not properly described in the plaint and that it was necessary to give clear description of the boundary. They also wanted to describe the existence of cart-road which is in between their land Gat No.164 and the Respondent's land 3 Gat No.159. They allege that proper description on the basis of old City Survey record and Tonch map was necessary in order to determine the controversy. They also wanted to add relief 1-b to restrain the Respondents from creating a new cart-way through their land Gat No.164. The Respondents opposed the application by filing written reply. They contended that the nature of the suit was likely to be changed. They submitted that the plaintiffs were in a difficult position to commence the trial due to the pleadings which were in existence and, therefore,after thought amendment was likely to prejudice to their defence. Hence, they resisted the amendment application. After hearing the parties, the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) rejected the application on the ground that the amendments were likely to create complications and could have prejudiced the defence of the Respondents. 4. Heard learned counsel Mr.Vakil for the petitioners. None appears for the Respondents. 4 5. The amendment application and the claim clauses would show that the description of eastern boundary along with further description regarding existence of trees was sought to be introduced. The petitioners did not ask for any change in the nature of the suit. The suit for injunction remained as it is except additional relief for injunction restraining the Respondents from creating any new cart way through the suit land. The learned Civil Judge observed that the complications were likely to arise due to the proposed amendments. This can not be a ground for rejecting the proposed amendment. The purpose of the amendment was to describe the suit land properly as well as to describe the existing cart-way which is allegedly between the lands of the parties. 6. In "Sajjan Kumar Vs. Ram Kishan" 2005 (13) SCC 89 and "Usha Devi Vs.Rijwan Ahmad and others" AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1147, the Apex Court held that merit of proposed amendment is hardly of any relevance. It is held that correction of description of suit property could 5 be provided vide proposed amendment even at late stage. For, the amendment could be necessary for bringing to fore the real controversy between the parties. Having regard to nature of controversy involved in the present civil litigation, the clarity about description of the suit land, particularly, eastern boundary thereof and existence of the alleged cart-way could be required in order to amplify understanding about nature of the lis between the parties. In such a case, amendment application could not be rejected only because there was apprehension that it could have given some rise to the complications. The apprehension seems to be illusory and improper. Hence, the impugned order is quite unsustainable. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application for amendment shall be allowed by the learned Civil Judge and necessary amendment may be permitted to be carried out on payment of costs of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) payable in the trial Court to the Respondents as a condition precedent. Rule made absolute 6 accordingly. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp467196