:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7509 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 7509 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 7509 OF 2007 Anant Vaman More ..Petitioner V/s Sarpanch Dudheri-Bamanghar Gram Panchayat ..Respondent Mr.J.A. Sarkhot for the petitioner Mr.Avinash Fatangare for the respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 25TH APRIL, 2008 : 25TH APRIL, 2008 : 25TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This petition impugns the order dated 17-4-2007, whereby the proposed amendment application :2: of the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit which is pending and cross-examination of the plaintiff is yet to commence. In the meantime, the application for amendment of the plaint has been made. The amendment application is mainly rejected on the ground that the amendment is at a very late stage and the facts were known to the plaintiff since beginning. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the application field by the petitioner. Originally the suit was filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from constructing road passing through the suit property. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the road has now been constructed pending the suit, by way of amendment, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to carry out amendment to the plaint. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Baldev Singh and others V. Baldev Singh and others V. Baldev Singh and others V. Manohar Manohar Manohar Singh and another, Singh and another, Singh and another, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498, the case of Sampath Kumar V. Ayyakannu and Sampath Kumar V. Ayyakannu and Sampath Kumar V. Ayyakannu and another another another reported in AIR 2002 S.C. 3369 and the case :3: of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others V. K.K. Modi Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others V. K.K. Modi Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others V. K.K. Modi and and and others, others, others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385. Relying upon the above cases the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the Court to allow the amendment of the pleadings, in such manner and on such terms as it appears to Court to be just and proper. She has further submitted that the proposed amendment would curtail multiplicity of the proceedings. She further submitted that in the case of Sampath Kumar Sampath Kumar Sampath Kumar (Supra) the suit was filed by the plaintiff for prohibitory injunction against dispossession and during the pendency of the suit, the defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff and by an application for amendment the plaintiff therein sought the relief for delivery of possession. The Court allowed the amendment and held that the proposed amendment did not alter the basic structure of the suit. 5. In my view, applying the principles laid down in the above decisions, the amendment ought to have been allowed by the trial Court considering the fact that the amendment was in respect of the same suit :4: property and fact that the prohibitory injunction was sought on apprehension in respect of the construction of road, which construction of road was ultimately carried out during the pendency of the suit. Merely because the amendment was sought at a late stage would not disentitle the petitioner for seeking the amendment. The respondent can be compensated by awarding costs. 6. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is required to be set aside. I accordingly set aside the impugned order with costs quantified at Rs.1500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within 4 weeks from today. Amendment to be carried out within one week of payment of costs. Costs would be condition precedent. 7. Writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms. .... ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)