WP No. 3950/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3950 OF 2010 1. Laxman s/o. Hiraman Chavhan, Age 55 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. Kolharwadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed. 2. Shivlal s/o. Hirman Chavhan, Age 45 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. As above. 3. Vishnu s/o. Hiraman Chavhan, Age 40 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. As above. ....Petitioners. Versus 1. Bhima s/o. Balabhau Chavhan, Age 50 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Kolharwadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed. 2. Nema s/o. Balabhau Chavhan, Age 47 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. As above. 3. Namdev s/o. Balabhau Chavhan, Age 45 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. As above. 4. Taramati w/o. Bhima Chavhan, Age 45 yrs., Occu. Household, R/o. As above. 5. Arun s/o. Nema Chavhan, Age 22 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. As above. 6. Ajinah s/o. Namdev Chavhan, WP No. 3950/2010 2 Age 19 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. As above. 7. Chandrasen s/o. Vishwanath Muley, Age 22 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. As above. ....Respondents. Mr. N.P. Bangar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. G.K. Naik-Thigle, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, 6 & 7. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. DATED : 10th December, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 20.2.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed whereby the application of the respondents/original plaintiffs to amend the plaint came to be allowed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents had sought to amend the plaint only after the interim injunction application came to be rejected and the Court has observed that there was certain defects in the plaint. The learned counsel submits that it is only in order to fill in the lacunae after taking a cue from the order which is passed and the written statement that has been filed, that WP No. 3950/2010 3 the amendment application came to be filed. He submits that since the written statement has already been filed, the amendment ought not have been allowed. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and in my view, no case for interference is made out. The petitioners would have an opportunity to file an additional written statement and meet with the amended clauses of the plaint. It is further noticed that the trial has so far not commenced and the amendment sought would not change the nature of the suit in any manner. Merely because there are some defects which are sought to be cured by the respondents/original plaintiffs would not mean that the amendment cannot be granted. It is well settled that when the trial has not commenced, the Courts would be liberal in granting amendment to pleadings if it does not change the nature of the suit. 5. In the circumstances, no fault can be found in the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in permitting the amendment. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. 6. It is, however, noticed that while allowing the amendment no costs have been granted. The respondents are directed to pay cost of Rs. WP No. 3950/2010 4 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) to the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today. [ A. A. SAYED, J. ] ssc/wp3950.10