1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3125 OF 2010. Ramesh Yeshwant Sakharkar and othes. -: VERSUS :- Devendra Amrutlal Purohit. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 06, 2010. Heard Shri R. Joshi, learned Counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs. Respondent has chosen not to appear, though he is served with notice for final disposal. There was no appearance on 26.08.2010 and hence the matter came to be adjourned to today. Shri Joshi, learned counsel states that on account of subsequent events, plaint was sought to be amended and trial Court has found that there was no delay in moving the application, however, merely because no substantial relief was sought, the amendment has not been allowed. According to him the suit was already for relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from making construction over the suit property and changing the structure thereof. With the assistance of learned counsel for petitioner, I have perused the impugned orders and 2 pleadings. The trial Court has found that the grant of any mandatory injunction for removing the subsequent construction was not prayed for. The subsequent construction is some wooden work and fixing of tiles on wall. According to Shri Joshi, learned counsel the removal of tiles or wood work would damage the property and therefore, that relief was not sought for. He further states that even otherwise, appropriate prayers are already made in Exh.1 and this is the development during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court has found that the amendment is not belated. Merits of the amendment are not relevant at this stage. The order rejecting the application therefore cannot be sustained. The said order dated 23.04.2010 passed below Exh.38 in Regular Civil Suit No. 247/2004 is therefore quashed and set aside. The petitioners / plaintiffs are permitted to carry out appropriate amendment in their plaint by the next date, as fixed by the trial Court in the matter. Liberty to respondent to carry out consequential amendment thereafter, if any, as per law. The trial Court shall proceed further with the suit on merits. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule absolute accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.