1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3789 OF 2008 (Lahanu Suryabhanji Yenkar vs. Bapuraoji Suryabhanji Yenkar ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 14, 2008. Heard Shri Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court has issued notice for final disposal. Though the respondent/ original defendant is served, he has chosen not to appear. He was absent on 18.10.2008 and thereafter on 7.11.2008. Today again, there is no appearance. Shri Mundra, learned counsel states that as the plaint was filed hurriedly with application of temporary injunction, the necessary factual matrix was not appearing in it and bare necessary facts were only disclosed. He further states that after reply to temporary injunction application came to be filed, the petitioner – plaintiff filed rejoinder to that reply. No written statement has been filed and said reply has been adopted as written statement and with a view to avoid any technicality, the petitioner/ plaintiff moved an application under Order 6, Rule 2 17 of Civil Procedure Code, to incorporate facts disclosed in rejoinder in his plaint. Shri Mundra, learned counsel contends that such amendment could not have been rejected as repetition. He states that either the rejoinder should be treated as part of pleadings or then the prayer for amendment needs to be granted. I have perused rejoinder as also the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC filed by the petitioner. The facts disclosed in rejoinder are sought to be added in plaint by the petitioner by moving an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC. It is clear that plaint only disclosed bare essential facts to show entitlement of the petitioner to claim necessary injunction and in view of defence raised in reply to temporary injunction, the facts pleaded in rejoinder were essential. When said reply to temporary injunction has been treated as written statement, the prayer for amendment ought to have been allowed. The nature of suit does not undergo any change and no prejudice is caused to the respondent thereby. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 1.7.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhamangaon Railway in Regular Civil Suit No. 7 of 2004 below Exh. 62 is hereby quashed and 3 set aside. Exh. 62 is accordingly allowed. The petitioner – plaintiff to carry out amendment in his plaint by 15.12.2008. Liberty to the respondent defendant to carry out consequential amendment thereafter as per law, if necessary. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.