( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4707 OF 2010 Gulabkhan s/o Sahebkhan PETITIONER VERSUS Dr. Sardar s/o Abdul Aziz & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.D. Patnoorkar, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th June, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The petitioner is original defendant No. 1 in suit bearing R.C.S. No. 306/1988. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed suit claiming possession of plots as described in the claim clause. During pendency of the suit, they alleged that the petitioner constructed a part of the suit property and, therefore, the amendment to the plaint may be allowed in order to claim mandatory injunction. The trial Court allowed the amendment of the plaint, having regard to subsequent intervening ( 2 ) development, and that order is being challenged by the petitioner. 3. The amendment does not cause any substantial change in the nature of the suit. The amendment could be allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It does not prejudice the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel that the construction was already in existence before filing of the suit and, therefore, relief could be sought at the time of filing of the suit and that the amendment is afterthought. The question whether the construction was carried out during pendency of the suit or prior to the suit would be subject matter of fact finding, which is required to be done after full- fledged trial. The impugned order does not suffer from any arbitrariness or patent illegality. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp4707-10