KBP 7228-08.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7228 OF 2008 Sou.Pramila Balasaheb Mehetre and others ..Petitioners Vs. Sou.Usha Vasantrao Bhagat ..Respondent ......... Mr.Rajesh More, for petitioners. Mr.Rajesh Shethia for the respondent ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 31 th August, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are plaintiffs are challenging the order passed by the trial Court, by which their application for amendment of plaint has been rejected. A suit was filed by the petitioners for declaration that the will allegedly executed by the deceased Bhagirathibai on 19 th April, 2003 is false and fabricated and the same is not binding on them. The petitioners are claiming relief of partition and separate possession of their 1/4 th share in the suit property described in part 1-A of the plaint. 2] It appears that the acquisition proceedings have been initiated in respect of the property at the instance of the Municipal Corporation for road widening. The petitioner, therefore, applied for the amendment of plaint. The amendment was sought for impleading the Municipal Corporation as a party defendant and for declaration that the petitioners have a share in the KBP 7228-08.sxw 2 compensation. A prayer for perpetual injunction was sought to be added that without payment of the share of the petitioner in the compensation amount, the Municipal Corporation should be restrained from paying the compensation to the respondent – Defendant. 3] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that if the relief as regards the compensation payable on account of acquisition is not prayed for, the respondent may take all the benefits on account of acquisition. He submitted that the proposed amendment was necessary for effectively adjudicating the dispute involved in the suit. Learned Advocate for respondent submitted that the Corporation has agreed to give compensation in the form of T.D.R., and as the litigation in the form of present suit is pending the Municipal Corporation has not released the T.D.R. 4] I have carefully considered the submissions. Considering the frame of the suit, a relief cannot be sought in the present suit as against the Municipal Corporation. Though the property is put to acquisition, for claiming a share in the monitory compensation in respect of acquired property, the petitioners have a remedy under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is a complete code by itself. Therefore the amendment sought for impleading the Municipal Corporation as a party and the amendment seeking injunction against the Municipal Corporation cannot be granted in the present suit. The petitioners have already prayed for declaration that they have undivided share in the suit property. If the Municipal Corporation has agreed to grant T.D.R in lieu of compensation, by making necessary application, the petitioners can claim a relief against the respondents defendants as regards the utilisation of said T.D.R. The petitioners can always apply to the trial court for grant of appropriate interim relief in respect of said T.D.R proposed to be granted by the Municipal Corporation. However, the amendment as sought cannot be allowed especially when the learned counsel appearing for KBP 7228-08.sxw 3 respondent has made a statement that the Municipal Corporation has decided to grant compensation in the form of the T.D.R on account of acquisition. 5] Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is rejected by keeping the remedies of the petitioners open. All contentions of the parties on merits of the pending suit are kept open. Ad-interim relief stands vacated. ( A.S.OKA, J. )