1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6038 OF 2009 Yvette Leslie Dias & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Anthony David Noel Henriques & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Vashdev T. Lulia for the petitioners. Mr.Clive D Souza for the respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12th August 2009. P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. 2. On the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petition is taken up for admission. The petitioners are the original defendants. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the trial Court by which respondents-plaintiffs have been permitted to amend the plaint. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit simplicitor for injunction which proceeds on the footing that they were in possession of the suit property. A 2 chamber summons was taken out for amendment. A contention was raised that during the pendency of the suit the respondents have been dispossessed by the petitioners. Therefore, amendment to the plaint was sought for incorporating relief of restoration of possession and for carrying out other consequential amendments. The said amendment has been permitted by the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the notice of motion taken out by the respondents for temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial Court by holding that the respondents have failed to prove their possession and that the petitioners are in possession. He pointed out that the said interim order has been confirmed in appeal by this Court. Relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh & Ors vs. Manohar Singh & Anr [2006(5) Maharashtra Law Journal 634] he submitted that the proposed amendment is totally inconsistent with the pleadings in the suit and such inconsistent amendment cannot be permitted. 3 He also placed reliance on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Nibas Gagar (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Debojyoti Das & Ors in Civil Appeal No.2336 of 1999 decided on 4th December 2002 and submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court which were confirmed by this Court cannot be allowed to be dislodged by permitting amendment. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The case made out by the respondents is that during the pendency of the suit they were dispossessed by the petitioners. Whether said case made out in the application for amendment is right or wrong cannot be decided while considering the prayer made for carrying out amendment. By the proposed amendment the respondents-plaintiffs desire to incorporate the prayer for possession. It cannot be said that inconsistent plea is sought to be raised by the respondents in as much as case of the respondents is that they were in possession on the date of institution of the suit but they have been dispossessed subsequently. The findings recorded 4 while deciding the notice of motion for temporary injunction are always tentative findings. On the basis of the said findings, the respondents cannot be prevented from amending the plaint and seeking relief of possession. 5. No case for interference is made out. Writ petition is rejected. It will be open for the petitioners to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. (A.S.OKA,J)