1 prod-9-wp-7597-2011.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srj WRIT PETITION NO.7597 OF 2011 Mr. Narendra H. Waghani @ Sopariwala. .. Petitioner. V/s. Smt. Gitanjali G. Bamne & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Girishkumar V. Pandya, for Petitioner. CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE, J. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. 2 Papers were produced by the Advocate for Petitioner, since he was seeking stay of the order, granting amendment to the plaint. The Advocate for the Petitioners was called upon to advance arguments. I have heard the learned Advocate. 3 Suit is filed for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement in the year 1994. The Plaintiff has filed interim application No.33 of 1990, 2 prod-9-wp-7597-2011.sxw seeking amendment of the plaint according to the schedule. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that if the amendment is allowed, the Plaintiffs may claim that the averments which are sought to be incorporated by amendment, would be claimed to be proved. 4 I do not find any merit in this submission. Even if the amendment is allowed, the averments which are sought to be added in the plaint and which are allowed to be added in the plaint, do not get proved and it would be for the Plaintiffs to prove their case by leading evidence. 5 It is then contended that in view of this order, the earlier order passed in favour of the Defendant/ Petitioner in Interim Notice No.421 of 2004 passed on 24th February, 2005 would be frustrated as, according to the Petitioner on account of alleged non-compliance of the said order, proceedings have been initiated in the Trial Court and the same are pending. Even this apprehension of the Advocate for the Petitioner that on account of the impugned order, the earlier order dated 24th February, 2005 would be frustrated is wholly unwarranted. The impugned order does not even remotely either modifies or nullifies the said earlier order in favour of the Petitioner. If the said interim order is subsisting, the same will obviously not be affected by the impugned order. 3 prod-9-wp-7597-2011.sxw 6 The Trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction conferred on it in accordance with law. There is no error of jurisdiction, nor any perversity in the finding recorded by the Court. The proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit. The revision has also been dismissed and the Revisional Court has also considered the objection of the Petitioner about the earlier order dated 24th February, 2005, likely to be allegedly frustrated. Without going into the question as to whether the said Revision was maintainable, since I have come to conclusion that no error has been committed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court, Writ Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. (G.S.GODBOLE, J.)