1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 660 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1823 OF 2008 Dilip Jamunadas Giyanani & Ors. ....Plaintiffs Versus Mr. Kumar Bhatija & Ors. ....Defendants Mr. Ajit Karwande a/w. Ms. Kavita Lalwan, Advocates for the Plaintiffs. Mr. H. Toor i/b. M/s. Kumana & Co., Advocates for Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Mrs. Rajni Iyer Sr. Advocate i/b. M/s. Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co., Advocates for Defendant Nos. 6 to 8. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 3rd MARCH, 2010. P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants. 2. The chamber summons is taken out by the Plaintiffs for amendment to the plaint in terms of schedule annexed to the chamber summons. By the proposed amendment, the Plaintiffs seek to introduce prayer b (i) which reads as follow: " Alternatively in case due practical reasons prayer clause a and he cannot be granted, then this Honorable Court, may if deemed fit and proper in alternate to prayer clause a and b, 2 partition the suit land and property (and proportionate structures thereon) by metes and bounds in the ratio of 5/28’ in favour of the plaintiffs and the possession of the same may be handed over to the plaintiffs or the market value of the same at prevailing market rates be paid to the plaintiffs.” 3. The Plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration that they are the joint owners of the suit land and further direction to the Collector to mutate their names to the suit land. The Plaintiffs have also claimed mes-ne profits. By the proposed amendment, the Plaintiffs claim partition of their share in the land claimed in the suit. In my opinion, if the proposed amendment is allowed, same will change the nature of the suit. The proposed amendment is also inconsistent with the original pleadings. In that view of the matter, the amendment cannot be allowed and the same is rejected. The chamber summons is accordingly, rejected. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)