1 Wp o.7483/08 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.7483 of 2008 Shrichand Melhumal Jamtani & Anr ... Petitioners versus Khubilal Gulabchand Rathod & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr. Surel Shah for the petitioner. Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude i/b S.B.Deshmukh for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 16th July 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 29 January 2008 passed by Learned 12th Civil Judge, Jr. Division Pune rejecting the petitioners application for amendment. 2. Petitioner filed a suit against the respondent for removal of an alleged encroachment on his property. The respondents by filing the written statement contested the suit and denied the encroachment. After 15 years of the filing of the suit, petitioner sought to amend the plaint so as to change the description of the property. The trial Court rejected the application. That order is impugned by this petition. 2 Wp o.7483/08 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of the acquisition of the adjoining property on the western side, for the purpose of construction of an express way, the western boundary has changed and therefore the petitioner wants to amend the description. The acquisition was a subsequent event and, therefore, amendment should have been allowed. Counsel for the respondent took me through original boundaries as given in the plaint as also the boundaries of the property as was sought to be corrected by the amendment. Not only the western boundary was sought to be altered but boundaries on all sides are sought to be altered by the proposed amendment. This clearly shows that the reason for the amendment is not the acquisition of western side property for express way. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that amendment was necessary because of a typographical error. There does not appear to be any typographical error because survey numbers of the properties have no similarity and are entirely different. 4. The property in respect of which encroachment is sought to be removed in the original suit and the property of which encroachment is sought to be removed after the amendment are totally different. The proposed amendment totally changes the subject matter of the suit. As such, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)