1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITIN NO.5237 OF 2009 Smt Draupadabai Shankar Ghumre .. Petitioner -versus Smt. Sangita Balasaheb Pingat and anr .. Respondents. Shri B.P. Abhale, for the petitioner. CORAM: R. G. KETKAR, J DATED: 5th August, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Shri. Abhale, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition. The original defendant challenges the order dated 24.4.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Sinnar, below exh.33 in Reg. Civil suit No.85 of 2003. Application at exh.33 was taken out by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint and in particular prayer clause (a) of the plaint. Originally when the suit was instituted on 11.6.2003, respondent-plaintiff 2 prayed for stay of the order passed by Tahsildar, Sinnar in Vahivat case No.36 of 2003. This order was passed on 2l. 3.2003, in proceeding under section l43 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, l966 (for short called as ‘Code’). 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed application for amendment to the effect that in prayer clause 8(a) instead of words “order be stayed”, words “order be quashed” be substituted. The petitioner opposed application by filing reply. According to petitioner by proposed amendment, the nature of the suit is changed and consequently it should not be allowed. The petitioner also submitted that under section l43(4) of the Code, order passed by Tahsildar could be challenged within a period of one year from the date of decision, by instituting civil suit. Admittedly in the present case though the suit filed within one year, from the date of decision of Tahsildar, the amendment application is moved nearly after five years. 3. Upon hearing both sides, learned Trial Judge, allowed the application. The learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that the amendment does not alter the nature of 3 the suit and since it was filed by the respondent-plaintiff at belated stage, he allowed the application subject to cost of Rs.400/-. 4. Mr. Abhale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application is filed after five years. Consequently having regard to the limitation prescribed under section l43(4) of the Code, the proposed amendment was time barred. As set out earlier, the order of Tahsildar under section l43 of the Code was passed on 2lst March, 2003. The suit is instituted on 11.06.2003 ie well within one year prescribed u/s l43(4) of the Code. The respondent also prayed for stay of the order passed by the Tahsildar. By the present amendment instead of praying for stay of the order of the Tahsildar, it is prayed for quashing of the order. In my opinion, learned Trial Judge was right in observing that the proposed amendment does not alter nature of the suit. Even otherwiswe the impugned order is interlocutory in nature. In the event the suit is decided against the petitioner, he will be at liberty to challenge the order of amendment at the time of filing of the appeal as 4 per section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, l908. In view of the above, I find no error committed by the learned Trial Judge. Hence petition stands dismissed. (R.G. KETKAR, J)