1 WP 7755.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7755 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. P.K.Joshi, Advocate holding for Mr. S.S.Deo,Advocate for the Petitioner .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 27/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. P.K.Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the order passed by the trial Court allowing the amendment application in the plaint. By virtue of the amendment, the plaintiff is claiming damages of the period during which he was allegedly dis-possessed in the year 2010 and the date when the possession was allegedly restored to him. 2 WP 7755.2010 3. Mr. P.K.Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amendment could not have been allowed as it was after the trial had commenced. The learned counsel further contends that the same would change the nature of the Suit and it may not be permissible. According to the learned counsel, false and frivolous amendment has been sought for. 4. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable in this case for the reason that the amendment sought is regarding the subsequent events. The merits of the amendment are not to be considered at the time of considering the amendment application. Whether the plaintiff is in a position to prove his case sought to be forwarded by way of amendment is different matter altogether, which the Court would consider on its own merits at the time of trial of the Suit. Suffice it to state that the amendment sought is in respect of the events as suggested by the plaintiff during the pendency of the Suit. 5. Even otherwise, the petitioner/defendant would have opportunity to file his Written Statement to the amended part in the plaint. 6. In light of the above, no interference is 3 WP 7755.2010 called for in the supervisory jurisdiction. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 7755.2010