1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1390 OF 2008 (Amarsingh Hirasingh Thakur .v. Tulsiram Kisan Ingle and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. S/Shri Shyam Dewani & Nitin Lalwani, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri A.M. Gordey, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri W.G. Charde, Advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. 05TH AUGUST, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. An order made by the learned trial Court below Exh.37 in Special Civil Suit No.440/2006 rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint is under challenge in the present writ petition. Shri Nitin Lalwani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that since the respondent No.2 was allowed to be joined to the suit, the amendment sought to be made by application (Exh.37) was necessitated. He further argued that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment. Shri A.M. Gordey, the learned Counsel for the 2 respondent No.1 and Shri W.G. Charde, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 opposed the writ petition and argued that the petitioner had filed appeal against the earlier decree and that appeal was dismissed to which Shri Nitin Lalwani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner answered by stating that the same was dismissed only on the ground of condonation of delay and not on merits and against which the writ petition is pending in this Court. Having heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties, I find that the prayers made in the application for amendment and the facts stated therein clearly are beyond the scope of the suit and a decree which had become final is sought to be reopened in a suit for specific performance of contract between the respondent No.1. The reliefs prayed for in the application for amendment cannot be considered in such a suit in the manner sought by the petitioner. The trial Court has, therefore, not chosen to allow the application for amendment and in my opinion it has considered it rightly. There is no substance in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. JUDGE *rrg.