1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5606 OF 2007 Dr.Ravindrakumar K. Gurav .. Petitioner Versus Govind Sripati Khandgale since deceased Smt.Shamabai Govind Khandgale & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.M.N.Dhamal for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjeev P. Kadam for respondent Nos.1a & 1b. Mr.P.J.Pawar for respondent No.2. Mr.Munir Merchant for respondent No.3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 21 st August 2009. P.C.: . The notice for final disposal has been issued by this Court. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1a and 1b, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed a suit in the year 2000. The suit is for specific performance of the Agreement for Sale executed by the 1 st defendant. The 2 nd and 3 rd 2 respondents are 2 nd and 3 rd defendants who have been impleaded subsequently. 2. An application for amendment of the plaint was made by the petitioner which has been rejected by the impugned order. In the application for amendment, the petitioner has referred to the orders passed on application for temporary injunction and has contended that in breach of the order of temporary injunction, the 2 nd respondent (2 nd defendant) has carried out and completed construction of a house on the suit property. The amendment sought is essentially for adding prayers in the plaint praying for removal of the structure of the said house and for taking action against the 2 nd respondent for committing breach of the order of temporary injunction. The learned trial Judge has rejected the application on the ground that it will bring about a change in the nature of the suit. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1a and 1b as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 have 3 opposed the petition by pointing out that the property subject matter of the Agreement allegedly executed in favour of the petitioner is different and construction has been carried out on an altogether a different property. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that there is no reason to permit the amendment. 4. I have considered the submissions. When application for amendment is considered, it is not permissible to enter into the question of merits of the proposed amendment. All that the petitioner wants to contend is that during the pendency of the suit, the 2 nd respondent has carried out construction on the suit property. Whether the said contention is right or wrong will have to be decided only after parties adduce evidence. Suffice it to say that there was no reason to deny the prayer for carrying out amendment. The impugned order is erroneous which deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned order dated 21 st April 2007 4 is quashed and set aside. (b) Application at Exhibit 78 made by the petitioner is allowed. (c) The petitioner will carry out amendment to the plaint within a period of two weeks from the date on which writ of this order is received by the trial Court. (d) The concerned defendants will be entitled to file a additional written statement within a period of six weeks from the date on which they are served with the amended copy of the plaint. (e) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. (f) All contentions of the parties in the pending suit are kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)