1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9734 OF 2009 Smt.Lata Namdeo Bodke ...Petitioner vs. Samir Rajiv Karambalekara & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.M.Hardas for the petitioner Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.Tushar Sonawane for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 2, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of an immoveable property. A relief of damages was claimed in the alternative. An application for amendment of the plaint was made by the petitioner which has been rejected by the impugned order. The amendment was sought for incorporating the description of certain immoveable properties held by the 2nd respondent. Further amendment was sought for contending that a charge will have to be kept on the properties already described in the plaint as well as the properties held by the 2nd respondent which were sought to be incorporated in the suit by the amendment. A prayer was made for keeping charge over the aforesaid properties for payment of amount of damages which was claimed in the alternative to the main relief of decree of specific performance. By the impugned order, the said amendment has not been permitted by the trial Court. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for amendment was made at the pre- trial stage and therefore, the Court ought not to have 2 permitted amendment by adopting a liberal approach. 3 I have considered the submissions. Perusal of the plaint shows that the prayer has been made by the petitioner for grant of damages in the alternative to the prayer for decree of specific performance. By the amendment a description of the certain properties held by the 2nd respondent is sought to be incorporated in the plaint. By the amendment, the petitioner wants to contend that there is a charge on the suit property as well as the property sought to be added by way of amendment for the amount of damages claimed in the suit. 4 Looking to the prayers made in the plaint, proposed amendment was completely irrelevant and misconceived. The properties sought to be incorporated in the suit are not the subject matter of the relief of decree for specific performance. If according to the petitioner, the respondents-defendants were in the process of transferring their properties, there were sufficient remedies available under the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 for safeguarding the claim of the petitioner-plaintiff. The trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer for amendment. No interference is called for. However, all the remedies of the petitioner are kept open. 5 Subject to what is observed above, Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE