-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.6055 of 2007 1. Shrad M.Inamdar and anr. ..Petitioners vs. 1.Sou.Smita @ Taramati V. Deshpande and others ..Respondents Shri A.K.Kenjale for petitioners. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIARI J. 9th January, 2008 9th January, 2008 9th January, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Shri Kenjale, learned Counsel appearing in support of this petition submits that the so-called subsequent developments were within the knowledge of the respondent/plaintiff in as much as on 18th January, 2000 it was pointed out that the plaintiff will have to amend the suit. Further, in June, 2003, it was pointed out once again that the property has changed hands. The transaction is of 1999. In these circumstances, allowing the amendment application in 2007 is improper and erroneous exercise of discretion and requires to be interfered with. 2. I have perused the impugned order. All that it permits is to amend the plaint and bring on record the subsequent developments. An belated -2- application cannot be rejected but appropriate order compensating the party for the delay can always be passed. In such circumstances, and applying liberal principles the amendment has been rightly allowed. However, for the delay, the plaintiff will have to pay costs quantified at Rs.1500/-. Costs to be paid within two weeks from today in the Trial Court. Except this modification to the Trial Court’s order the writ petition stands dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)