1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2009. Ravish Chandrakumar Chouriya .vs. Mr. Asgar Ali & others. ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. Mr. N.B. Bargat, Advocate for appellant, Mr. Khalid Ansari, Advocate for respondent no.1, Mr. M.R. Joshi, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : JULY 2, 2009. Heard. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.10.2008 dismissing the appellant’s Writ Petition against the order of the trial Court refusing injunction. The appellant initially filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. He claimed that the defendant was an owner of the suit property and had entered into an oral agreement of sale with him on 1.4.1997. According to him, the defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the part of the suit premises and, therefore, he instituted the suit for declaration and injunction. Subsequently, he preferred an amendment application in which he sought to incorporate a prayer for a decree for specific performance of contract directing the defendants to execute the sale-deed of the suit house. The trial Court took the view that the amendment 2 application was not necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties and held that the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit. The learned Single Judge has rejected the challenge to the order of the trial Court refusing amendment on the ground that the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit from a suit for permanent injunction into a suit for specific performance of contract and seeks to introduce the fact of renewal of lease in favour of the defendant from the Nagpur Improvement Trust and also the prayer for specific performance of contract in view of the renewal of the lease. It further appears that the learned Single Judge was of the view that the trial Court had held the application for amendment barred by limitation. We find, however, from the perusal of the order of the learned trial Court that there is no specific finding to the effect that the prayer for specific performance is barred by limitation. The learned trial Court has merely noted the objection of the defendant in that regard. Therefore, to this extent we find that the observation of the learned Single Judge is not correct. However, we are of the view that the amendment does change the nature of the suit and was liable to be rejected. In this view of the matter, we do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge except by way of setting aside the observation of the learned Single Judge on the issue of limitation. The appellant, if so advised, shall be entitled to file an independent suit for specific performance of the contract. 3 The respondents/defendants shall be entitled to raise the issue of limitation which may be gone into in the suit. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE. J.