1 wp-4111-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4111 of 2011 Shankar Tatyaba Mali & Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Krishan Balu Mali (Yadav) & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Dilip Bodake for Petitioners Mr. Umesh Mankapure for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr. S.D.Rayrikar AGP for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 18th NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. : 1 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 20-12-2010 passed by the Learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karad, by which order, the Application Exhibit 85 in Regular Civil Suit No.34 of 2006 for amendment of the plaint filed by the Respondents herein who are the Plaintiffs came to be allowed. The amendment sought was in respect of the description of the property in as much as, the gat numbers which were formed pursuant to the consolidation scheme were wrongly mentioned. Hence amendment were proposed in paragraph 3 of the Plaint. The said amendment was based on the application and on the subsequent order passed by the Consolidation officer thereon. The amendment proposed was in respect of the lands which were ancestral lands of the Plaintiffs in 2 wp-4111-11 respect of which, there was consolidation. The Plaintiffs had wrongly mentioned that the lands were consolidated in Gat No.538 instead of Gat No.542. The said application was opposed on the ground that the same was moved at a belated stage and in view of the mandate of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, the same cannot be allowed. The Trial Court taking into consideration the fact that the said amendment is on the basis of the consolidation scheme and with a view to see to it that the dispute between the parties is settled thought it fit to exercise discretion by allowing the amendment on the payment of costs. Though, it is true that the said amendment was moved at a belated stage, the fact remains that if the amendment leads to the complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties and avoids multiplicity of proceedings, the same is required to be allowed. The Trial Court for the inconvenience that is caused to the Defendants has imposed costs of Rs.200/- on the Plaintiffs. 2 In my view, the discretion exercised by the Trial Court in allowing the amendment for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order does not merit any interdiction at the hands of this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, in my view, the costs imposed by the Trial Court are too trifling and would, therefore, have to be enhanced. The Plaintiffs therefore to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Defendants within a period of 4 weeks from date. 3 If the costs are not paid, the Defendants would be entitled to 3 wp-4111-11 recover them in accordance with law. 4 The Defendants would also be entitled to file additional written statement in respect of the amended plaint if so advised. The Defendants would also be entitled to lead additional evidence in terms of the amendment permitted. 5 These observations have been made in view of the fact that the evidence of the Defendants is presently being recorded and the Learned Counsel Mr. Mankapure for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 submitted that no oral evidence would be lead by the Plaintiffs, as they have already closed their evidence. 6 With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)