1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 184 OF 2010 Mr. Doodhnath Gena Prashad & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs Assistant Municipal Commissioner & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri R.U. Singh for the Petitioners. Shri M.M. Malvankar i/by Shri R.A. Malandkar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri Kunal Cheema for Respondent Nos.3 to 6. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.3 to 7. By the impugned order, the Trial Judge has permitted the original Plaintiffs to carry out amendment to the Plaint. 2. The suit has been filed by the original Plaintiffs for perpetual injunction restraining the municipal authorities from granting any permission to erect stalls on the drainage line or on the footpath which was being constructed outside the shop of the original Plaintiffs. The suit has 2 been filed in January, 2009. A Chamber Summons was taken out for amendment of the Plaint. It is contended by the Plaintiffs that during the pendency of the suit, the present Petitioners have shifted the stalls in front of the shops of the 1st and the 2nd Plaintiffs. Amendment is sought for adding the averments regarding the alleged subsequent events which have taken place after the institution of the suit and for substituting prayers in the suit. The prayer which is sought to be added is for cancellation of permission granted by the municipal authorities to the Petitioners to shift the stalls. The second prayer which is sought to be substituted is in the nature of consequential relief seeking cancellation of the licenses issued by the municipal authorities to the Petitioners. 3. The challenge by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners is mainly on the ground that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit and the Plaintiffs have no right to seek cancellation of the licenses granted by the municipal authorities. 4. The amendment has been made on the ground of alleged shifting of the stalls by the Petitioners during the pendency of the suit. The original prayer in the suit is for preventing the municipal authorities from permitting the Petitioners to shift their stalls. According to the Plaintiffs, the stalls have been already shifted during the pendency of the suit. By the amendment, the prayer is sought to be incorporated for cancellation of the permission granted in favour of the Petitioners to shift their stalls and for 3 cancellation of the licenses granted by the municipal authorities in favour of the Petitioners. The amendment is based on the alleged subsequent events and the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit. Hence, no case for interference is made out in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is rejected. If additional Written Statement is not filed by the Petitioners and the other Defendants till today, the same shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today. (A.S.OKA, J)