:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8213 OF 2006 Shantaram M.Bhatt (since deceased through LRs Mrs.Sulochana S.Bhatt and Others. .. Petitioners. Vs. Modilal Kohora & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Abhay L.Patki for the petitioners. Mr.V.S.Kapse for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard Mr.Patki, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Kapse, learned counsel for respondent no.1. None for other respondents, though served. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. By consent of learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing. Mr.Kapse, learned counsel waives service for respondent no.1. 4. By this writ petition the petitioners have impugned the judgment and order dated 15.11.2006 by which the petitioners’ application for amendment has been allowed by the trial Court. The petitioner-plaintiffs had prayed for amendment of the pleadings whereby he sought to add paragraphs 4(a) to 4(i) in the pleadings. The trial Court, however, :2: :2: :2: allowed the petitioner to add paragraphs 4(a) to 4(h) as per the schedule and rejected the amendment contained in paragraph 4(i), III and IV. I perused said paragraphs 4(i), III and IV which read thus: "4(i). The Plaintiffs state that the Defendants No.2 to 4 are unlawful occupants in the suit premises and they have got no right of howsoever nature in the suit premises and/or any part thereof. The Defendants No.2 to 4 have been joined as parties Defendants to the present suit just to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings between the parties. III Add at the end of last line of the paragraphs 6 of the plaint the word "unlawful subletting of the suit premises." IV For consequential amendment in the body of the plaint in construction of the sentences. 5. This amendment was sought by the petitioners stating that they subsequently learnt that defendant no.1 has sublet the suit premises to defendant nos.2 to 4. Mr.Kapse, learned counsel for respondent no.1 vehemently submitted that such amendment cannot be allowed in view of the fact that defendant nos.2 to 4 have filed the affidavits stating that they were not inducted in the suit premises as sub-tenants and they were only working as servants of defendant no.1. He further submits that defendant nos.2 to 4 are now not working with defendant no.1. The question whether or not they were in possession, and if yes, whether as sub-tenants or servants cannot be and need not be :3: :3: :3: considered at this stage and it could be gone into by the trial Court during the trial. Considering the nature of amendment as sought in paragraphs 4(i), III and IV, if allowed, in my opinion, will not cause any prejudice to the defendants. It is always open for the defendants to file additional written statement and plead their case in respect of the amendment. In the circumstances this writ petition is allowed. The petitioners to carry out amendment within two weeks from today. It is open for the defendants to file additional written statement within the time stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the date of carrying out the amendment. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)