1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5485/2011 (ARUN NARAYAN DEVIKAR & OTHERS VERSUS SHESHRAO SONBAJI FUKE & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Rohit Joshi, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 22 , 2011 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court on 25.08.2011 allowing an application filed by the respondents under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. The respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners from carrying on construction work. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants had encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the proceedings, certain events occurred and, hence, though the evidence of the plaintiffs’ side was closed in the year 2007, an application was made by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint. By the proposed amendment, the respondents-plaintiffs desired to bring the subsequent events on record, specially the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. Though some of the orders were passed before the tendering of the evidence of the plaintiffs, it appears that 2 some orders were passed in the year 2009 and the trial Court, therefore, rightly found that the proposed amendment was necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties. The trial Court observed that it was necessary to allow the amendment application or else there would be multiplicity of litigation. Since the proposed amendment was necessary for effectively deciding the lis between the parties and a part of the proposed amendment could not have been brought on record before the trial commenced, the trial Court rightly allowed the amendment application by the impugned order dated 25.08.2011. The order is just and proper and calls for no interference. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE