1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6380 OF 2010 Balram s/o Trimbak Chaudhari & others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS Bhavrao s/o Ramchandra Pathade & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. V.B. Garud, advocate for the petitioners. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 30 th SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Application tendered by the plaintiffs / respondents herein seeking amendment to the plaint has been allowed by the trial court in view of order passed on 28-6-2010 and said interim order passed during the continuance of the suit is subjected to challenge in this petition. 2 Initially, plaintiffs / respondents herein presented suit claiming decree of perpetual injunction. However, it appears that during continuance of the suit, defendants presented application seeking amendment to the written 2 statement and contended that they are in possession of the land to the extent of 6 gunthas. It is stated that defendants have changed the earlier stand taken by them while contesting the application seeking interim injunction. It is also further contended that the property was got measured as per the order passed by the court through TILR on 16-12-2009 wherein some encroachment is stated to have been committed by the defendants is revealed. In this view of the matter, plaintiffs seek amendment to the pleadings and seek relief of recovery of possession of the area to the extent of 8 gunthas. Application for amendment is contested by the defendants contending that the application is tendered at belated stage and after framing of the issues and, as such, in view of proviso to Rule 17 Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the application shall not be entertained. It is to be noted that plaintiffs intend to amend the pleadings in view of subsequent changes those occurred during the continuance of the suit. Amendment is affected in the written statement by the defendants thereby changing their previous stand. Plaintiffs could not have presented the application at any prior point of time as they intend to bring on record the developments occurred during the continuance of the suit. Arguments based on proviso to Rule 17 Order 6 of the Code of Civil Proceudre advanced by defendants / petitioners herein are not sustainable. Considering the interlocutory nature 3 of the proceeding, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for in the petition. Petition is devoid of substance. Petition stands rejected. 3 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp6380.10.odt