1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5209/2010 (Devrao Nanaji Wararkar VERSUS Ashok Dadaji Wararkar & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.A. Sable, counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Kurekar, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 19 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 12.07.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. He had filed the suit for possession of the house property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing his right of way to the agricultural land. The plaintiff had also made a prayer for mesne profits. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner filed an application under order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment to the plaint and claiming that he had suffered approximate loss of Rupees One Lac. The trial Court allowed the amendment application. The amendment was carried out and after the temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff again filed yet another amendment application seeking compensation for the subsequent years to the tune of Rupees Two Lacs and an amount of Rs.2,659/- for repair of electric pump. The respondents opposed the prayer made in the application for amendment. 2 The trial Court on a consideration of the amendment application and the reply filed thereto, by the impugned order dated 12.07.2010, rejected the same. The order passed by the trial Court on 12.07.2010 is just and proper. The trial Court rightly held that the petitioner had previously moved an amendment application and claimed damages and after the said amendment application was allowed, a second application for amendment was sought seeking damages to the tune of Rupees Two Lacs. The trial Court held that the petitioner had filed the suit for possession and for permanent injunction against the defendant. Since the petitioner had also claimed mesne profits, the trial Court held that the proposed amendment sought by the second amendment application was flimsy and unsustainable. The trial Court held that the proposed amendment was not necessary for effectively determining the real controversy between the parties. According to the trial Court, the proposed amendment was inconsistent with the pleadings of the plaintiff in the suit. There is no error in the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioner, specially when the proposed amendment was surely not necessary for effectively deciding the lis between the parties. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE