1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6271 OF 2009 Bhausaheb s/o Namdeo Aware .. PETITIONER VERSUS Revji s/o Namdeo Aware & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.K. Gawali, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Zarkar, advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. A.R. Karpe, advocate for respondent no. 6. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 7 th SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1 An application tendered by the plaintiff / petitioner herein seeking leave to amend the plaint has been turned down by the 3 rd Jt. Civil Judge,Jr.Dn., Ahmednagar in view of order passed on 17-6-2009. 2 Plaintiff presented suit bearing Regular Civil Suit no. 417/2005 claiming partition and separation of shares of the ancestral agricultural properties. Plaintiff has impleaded operators of the mobile companies as party respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the suit. Plaintiff is also claiming mesne profit as 2 contemplated by Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff contends that during the continuance of suit, defendant has leased out the disputed property in favour of five mobile companies for erecting towers and the defendant is securing monthly rent from the concerned companies. Plaintiff intends to implead those mobile companies as party defendants to the suit and also seeking amendment requesting the court to grant relief in respect of the share receivable towards rent from the aforesaid mobile companies. 3 Trial court, however, turned down the prayer made by the plaintiff for amending the plaint by recording finding that the concerned mobile companies in whose favour lease deed has been executed are not necessary parties to the suit wherein plaintiff has claimed partition of the property. Plaintiff has already prayed for relief in respect of grant of mesne profit under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4 I have perused the application as well as the impugned order passed by the trial court. Reasons recorded by the trial court while rejecting the application are reasonable and proper and do not call for any interference. Plaintiff has already made prayer in respect of recovery of mesne profit. 3 Plaintiff may also claim additional mesne profit on account of execution of lease deed in favour of the mobile companies by respondent no. 1 during the continuance of suit. Plaintiff may have liberty to present appropriate application in that regard and the court may after considering the objections that may be raised, consider such prayer in accordance with law. No interference is called for at this stage in the instant petition. Petition stands rejected. 5 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp6271.09.odt