1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6171 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.S.A.Ambad, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs.Savita Mapari, advocate holding for Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, advocate for the Respondents Nos.1 to 5. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 30.08.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The present Respondents had filed a suit for injunction in respect of well water and approach road along with other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit and before issues are framed, the petitioners moved an application for amendment and in addition, sought injunction in respect of share of plaintiff No.1 from Gat No.84 and from creating new road from the said Gat and cultivating joint land. The trial Court allowed the said amendment application. Aggrieved thereby, 2 the present petition is filed by the defendant. 3. Mr.Ambad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court could not have allowed the amendment application inasmuch as the said amendment challenges the nature of the suit and the amendment which changes the nature of the suit can not be allowed. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and sons" reported in 2009 Scale-13-241. The learned counsel further contends that the said amendment prejudicially affects the rights of the petitioner and as such could not have been allowed. 4. Mrs.Savita Mapari, learned counsel for the Respondent strenuously contends that the trial Court has taken into consideration all the aspects while allowing the amendment application, that would save multiplicity of the litigation. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order and the pleadings. No doubt, initially the plaintiff claimed 3 injunction in respect of the well water and approach road. Now by way of amendment claims injunction in respect of the share of plaintiff No.1 from Gat No.84, from creating new road from the said Gat and cultivating joint land. Though these reliefs are new, it can not be said that the nature of the suit would change. The suit would remain the suit for perpetual injunction. On the contrary, the same would avoid the multiplicity of litigation. The Apex Court of in a case of "Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons" referred supra has laid down proposition as to when the amendment is to be allowed and rejected. One of the proposition is that refusing amendment would in fact, lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation. In the present case, the amendment application has been made before even the issues are framed and the same would avoid the multiplicity of litigation. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as he will have an 4 opportunity to file his written statement to the amendment. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.30.08.2011. asp/office/wp6171.11