1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1293 OF 2009 Mr.Modilal Kaluram ...Petitioner vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.R.Singh for the petitioner Mr.Hamid Mulla h/f Mr.Patki for respondent nos.2 and 3 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 7, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who has filed a suit for challenging the action under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888. In the plaint, it is pleaded by the petitioner that the concerned officer of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation was caught red handed on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner with the Anti-Corruption Department. 2 A chamber summons was taken out by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint for the purpose of relying upon the First Information Report lodged against the said officer in the year 1996. The chamber summons was taken out in the year 2008 in the suit of the year 1997. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge rejected the chamber summons by ordering payment of compensatory 2 costs. 3 After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the learned trial Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer for permitting the amendment of the plaint. In the plaint as it stands today, the petitioner has specifically come out with a case that the concerned officer of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation was arrested by the Anti Corruption Bureau. Therefore, the petitioner can always apply to the trial court seeking permission to file certified copy of the F.I.R. 4 Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. 5 All contentions of the parties on merits in pending suit are kept open. JUDGE