1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4343 OF 2009 Gangaram s/o Dattarao Kawarkhe ..PETITIONER. V E R S U S Narayan s/o Mhadaji Kawarkhe and anr. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri P.S. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 15th JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17.04.2009 vide which the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for amendment of plaint came to be allowed. 2- The respondent plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff in the suit premises. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the petitioner. The defendant has also raised counter claim. During the pendency of the suit an application came to be filed by the respondent-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. By way of amendment, the respondent-plaintiff has sought to raise a plea that the respondents have unauthorizedly encroached upon the land and erected a tower thereon. He has therefore prayed for possession of the said land. Said application was vehemently opposed by the present petitioner. However, the learned trial court allowed the said application. Hence present petition. 3- Shri Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the plaint is amended only after the 2 petitioner/defendant had pointed out that the defendant was in peaceful possession of the said land. He submits that the proposed amendment changes the entire nature of the suit. He therefore, submits that the learned trial court has grossly erred in allowing application filed by the plaintiff. 4- It is settled law that the courts are required to take liberal view in grant of amendment. Normally, all the amendments which are necessary for complete and effective adjudication are to be allowed. In the present case, issues are yet to be framed and as such, there is no question of trial being commenced. The learned trial court has given sound and cogent reasons for allowing the application. In that view of the matter, no perversity or infirmity could be found with the approach adopted by the trial court so as to warrant interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence rejected. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp4343.09