1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2520/2008 (Municipal Council through its C.E.O., Umrer vs. Narendra Baburao Bhiwapurkar and others) ====================================== CORAM : B.P.Dhamadhikari, J. DATE : 21 st NOVEMBER, 2008 Heard Advocate Shri Charde, for the petitioner. The suit as filed by respondent was in the capacity as a lessee of petitoner Municipal Council. In view of subsequent knowledge as alleged by respondent/plaintiff, the amendment was sought that land in fact belonged to State Government and Municipal Council has got nothing to do with it. The prayers in the complaint were for protection of possession and an additional prayer has been sought to be added to declare that present petitioner (original defendant) is having no right, interest or tile over the suit plot. The amendment has been allowed on 19.4.2008. Advocate Charde contends that the amendment has the effect of withdrawing admission and it introduces inconsistent plea and changes the nature of the suit. He wants to rely upon several 2 judgments to show that such types of amendments cannot be allowed. He further contends that the State Government has not been added as Party in the suit. Advocate Deo for the respondents contends that the suit was for permanent injunction and the nature of suit remains as it is and only additional facts are added. He further contends that no admission has been withdrawn and he also argues that the State Government is neither necessary nor proper party. The plaint as filed was only for protecting the possession and the respondents/ plaintiffs have pleaded that the plot was allotted to his father by the Municipal Council as a lessee. The said pleadings had not been withdrawn, however, additional plea has been added, which states that the said land in fact belongs to the State Government and the Municipal Council is not its owner. Accordingly the prayer as mentioned above is also added. I, therefore, do not find that nature of the suit undergoes any change. The contention that the State Government ought to have been joined as party or then the matter should have been presented before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, cannot be considered at this stage. The present petitioner can aways raise these objections while effecting consequential amendments in its written statement. No case is made out for interfering with the order 3 in writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit