hcs 1 w1462.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1462 OF 2010 Sanjay Marutirao Jadhav .. Petitioner. Vs. Maruti Keshav Khot & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Amit Sale for the petitioner. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 11th February, 2011. PC: 1. Inspite of duly served with notice of final disposal, none appears for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 9th June, 2009 by which an application filed by the present petitioner for amendment of the plaint came to be rejected. 3. Initially, the plaintiff has prayed for decree directing the Court Commissioner to measure the suit premises and after measurement direct demolition of the wall constructed by the defendant by encroaching on northern side. Subsequently, the application came to be filed for amendment so as to incorporate the prayer to effect that since as per measurement carried out by the Court Commissioner in accordance with the order passed by the learned hcs 2 w1462.10.sxw District Judge dated 14th August, 2006 it has been found that in the property owned by the plaintiff in City Survey No.619 the defendants have encroached on 0.07 sq. mtr. area and, therefore, petitioner sought amendment that the said encroachment should be removed by demolition of wall and the construction carried on and possession of same should be handed over to the petitioner. Since the application is rejected hence the present petition. 4. Shri Sale, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a categorical statement that the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief has not been filed by the present petitioner and as such trial has not commenced. It is settled principle of law that the courts are required to take liberal view in the matter of amendment of pleadings. In any case amendment which is sought to be incorporated is in view of the subsequent development i.e. report of the Court Commissioner as per the orders of learned District Judge dated 14th August, 2006. 5. In that view of the matter the petition is partly allowed. The order dated 9th June, 2009 is quashed and set aside. The application of the present petitioner below Exhibit-56 is allowed. No orders as to costs. Amendment to be carried out within four weeks from today. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)