1 W.P. 9596.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9596 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders ................................ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14/12/2011. Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for the petitioner. ..................... PER COURT : 1. The present petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed Suit for declaration regarding the notice and injunction. During the pendency of the Suit, the petitioner moved an application for amendment on the ground that the petitioner has moved an application for regularization. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. Hon, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment sought would not change the nature of the Suit. By way of an amendment, subsequent events were tried to be brought on record i.e. an application for regularization made by the petitioner and the acts and deeds done by the 2 W.P. 9596.2011 petitioner in compliance of the order passed by the Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar from time to time. There was no impediment for the Court to allow the said amendment application. The learned counsel contends that all this is a matter of record and if the said amendment application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant, on the contrary it would assist the Court in conducting the matter. 3. The petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the present respondent on various grounds as set out in the plaint. The amendment as sought would be mutually destructive to the pleadings already filed on record. The petitioner can adduce the evidence regarding the subsequent events. If the official correspondence has been entered into between the parties after filing of the Suit, the petitioner can bring the said official communication and the correspondence with the respondents on record, in evidence also. The respondent is an autonomous body and the public institution. The petitioner would always have a right to move the Court if his regularization application is allowed by the Municipal Corporation. At this stage, no error is committed by the Court in rejecting the said application. The Court has observed that no additional relief is claimed even on the basis of the proposed amendment. The plaintiff would have that additional right if his regularization application is allowed. 3 W.P. 9596.2011 4. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 9596.2011