1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5720/2010 RAJENDRA VISHWANATH CHOUDHARY & ANOTHER ..VS.. DR. DURGADAS HANSRAJ VASUDEO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 24, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial court on 28.9.2010, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the plaintiff/ petitioner, by the order dated 2.8.2010, the trial court while rejecting the application filed by the respondent/ defendant for dismissal of the suit had directed the petitioner to make necessary amendment in the plaint, so as to annex a schedule of property to the plaint and also make necessary pleadings in the plaint for identifying the suit property. It appears, that instead of amending the plaint as per the order dated 2.8.2010, the plaintiff /petitioner wanted to annex the schedule and amend the plaint, as per the description of the property in the alleged sale deed dated 9.10.1978. 2 The trial court however, by the impugned order dated 28.9.2010, rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner did not describe the property as required by the provisions of order 7 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the plaintiff/ petitioner mechanically wanted to incorporate some description of the property which was mentioned in the alleged sale deed dated 9.10.1978 by the proposed amendment without describing as to where and within which boundaries the property was situated. However, it appears that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the amendment application. The amendment application ought to have been granted by the trial court. It is however, necessary to note that the petitioner/ plaintiffs should face the consequences of not amending the plaint as per the directions issued by the trial court by the order dated 2.8.2010. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the trial court should allow the amendment application and in case the same is not in accordance with the provisions of law the petitioner is ready to bear the consequences thereof. The court had specifically directed the plaintiff to make necessary pleadings for identifying the suit property and also to annex the schedule of the property to the plaint. Instead of doing so, it appears from the application for 3 permission to carry out the amendment that the petitioner has merely incorporated the description of the property in the alleged sale deed dated 9.10.1978. Though the amendment application needs to be allowed, if would be for the plaintiffs to prove before the court that the provisions of Order 7 rule 3 have been complied with or else the petitioner would lose the opportunity to comply with the order passed by the trial court on 2.8.2010 directing the petitioners to give details for identifying the suit property and annexing the schedule, in letter and spirit. Hence for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 28.9.2010, is quashed and set aside. The petitioners are permitted to amend the plaint. However, the trial court is free to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law if the court finds that the petitioners have not described the property in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP