1 wp 8478.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8478 OF 2011 Govind Sopanrao Bansude .. Petitioner Versus Kishor Laxminarayan Mantri and others .. Respondents Shri N. D. Kendre, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the original plaintiff. After the issues were framed, the plaintiff adduced his evidence. The plaintiff was also cross examined. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment. By way of amendment application the plaintiff sought various amendments. The plaintiff sought addition of parties who according to the plaintiff had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff also wanted to change the boundaries by way of an amendment. The Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2 wp 8478.11 2. Shri Kendre, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is after the Commissioner’s report was submitted the plaintiff got the knowledge about sale deed being executed in favour of 30 persons and as such the amendment was necessitated. According to the learned counsel to avoid further multiplicity in the proceeding the amendment was necessary. The learned counsel further contends that merely because the examination in chief is led and the plaintiff is cross examined that would not be a ground to reject the application. The learned counsel further contends that merits of the amendment are not required to be considered while deciding the amendment application. The persons sought to be added have been fraudulently inducted in the suit property and the suit being for mandatory injunction and possession, they were necessary parties. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the pleadings and the order. The plaintiff has already led his examination in chief and is cross examined. The said examination in chief is filed on the basis of pleadings already on record. The Court has observed that even the complete names of the persons sought to be added are not given and even the sale 3 wp 8478.11 deed is not produced on record. The Trial Court has properly considered the aspect while hearing the amendment application. Moreover, if according to the petitioner the persons sought to be added have been introduced in possession by the defendants during the pendency of the suit and the deed of conveyance is executed during the pendency of suit, the plaintiff is not required to challenge the same. But the same would be protected by virtue of Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The purchaser pendante-lite would be bound by the decree that would be passed. In view of above facts, no error is committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application. The writ petition is as such dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11