1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3583 OF 2011 Rajendrakumar Motilalji Chandel Vs. State of Maharashtra through Collector &another. .......................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders .......................................................................................................................................... Mr. Mahesh Singh, Adv. for the petitioners. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 29th JULY, 2011. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 21.6.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, by which order the application filed for amendment of plaint Exh. 103 by the petitioner came to be rejected. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who has filed Special Civil Suit No. 86/2008 for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of land admeasuring 0.13R which is situated at mouza Tarkheda Pragane Badnera, Tahsil and District Amravati. The case of the plaintiff in the said suit is that the owner had permitted the plaintiff to occupy the said land in question and therefore the possession claimed by the plaintiff was a permissive possession. The plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint which came to be numbered as Exh. 103, the sum and substance of the amendment was that the plaintiff sought to claim a right on the basis of .....2/- 2 adverse possession. The said application was moved after the cross-examination of the plaintiff was completed by the defendants. It is further required to be noted that by order dated 29th July, 2010, passed by this court in W.P. no.5412/2008, which was filed by the plaintiff against the refusal of injunction, this court had expedited the hearing of the suit and directed it to be disposed of within one year from the receipt of the order of this court. The said period, I am told, is to expire in August, 2011. Considering the fact that the plaintiff has been cross-examined by the defendants and also considering the fact that the plaintiff wanted to change the substratum of the suit from one of permissive to adverse possession, the trial court did not deem it fit to grant the said application and rejected the same on the ground that since the trial has begun and since the nature of the claim is changed, the application Exh. 103 could not be allowed. Having perused the reasons mentioned by the trial court in the impugned order dated 21.6.2011 and considering the fact that this court has expedited the hearing of the suit, in my view, no interdiction is called for in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Hirekhan ...../-