1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3751 OF 2009 IN REV. APPLICATION NO. 40 OF 2008 IN NOTICE EXHIBIT NO. 15 OF 2007 IN IN R.A.E. SUIT NO. 14 OF 2007 National Builders. ... Petitioner V/s. Smt. Jayawanti Salgaonkar & Anr. ... Respondents .................. Shri. Pradip Kadam for Petitioner. Shri. E.K. Sasidharan for Respondent No. 1 .................. CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATE : 16th June, 2009. P.C. 1. The trial Court directed applicant to be added as party plaintiff. The Defendant challenged the order in revision and the Appellate Bench of the 2 Small Causes Court has reversed the same. That is how the present petition came to be filed. 2. Having heard Mr. Kadam appearing for the Petitioner I am of the opinion that the order of the Appellate Bench is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of record. The original Plaintiff had stated before the court and not disputed the contentions raised by the present petitioner. Therefore, the Defendant – tenant could not have objected to his joinder as a Plaintiff. 3. In the application seeking amendment, while granting or rejecting the same the court is not concerned with the merit of the same. In the order under challenge the trial Court’s finding has been reversed by the Appellate Bench not only on the ground that the Petitioner is not a necessary party, but that from the record it does not appear that the original plaintiff has given up the right in the property. All this when the lower Appellate Court does not dispute that the applicant before the trial Court i.e. Petitioner before me contended that he is the owner of the building including suit premises under a Registered Deed of conveyance dated 25 th October, 1995 and the Respondent – Defendant is a tenant. 4. I am of the view that the trial Court, had inconsonance with the contents of the application made, rightly granted the relief and allowed impleadment of the applicant as party Plaintiff. That amendment is already carried out and the lower Appellate Court interfered with this decretion. The trial Court’s 3 observations in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of its order dated 27 th March, 2008 ought not to have been interfered with considering the circumstances and the facts of the case. The order of the Appellate Bench is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. It is open for the Petitioner and the Respondent – Defendant to place their contentions before the court below and the court must consider as to who is entitled for the final relief and on that basis pass the final order. Petition allowed in the above terms but without any order as to costs. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ndm/wp3751.09