gst 1 wp7350.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 7350 OF 2010. Balkrishan Narayan Bhujbal... .... .... ..Petitioner. V/s Shakuntala Ramas Pujari & Anr. .. ... ..Respondents. Mr.Ajay S. Patil, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.N.R.Bubna, Adv. For R.Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 22nd March, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for hearing. By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 9.8.2010 vide which an application filed by the present petitioner below Ex.47 has been partly allowed. The petitioner is aggrieved by that part of the order which refuses the amendment. 2. The petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages. It is the contention of the petitioner that the suit property has been purchased by him from defendant No.1. Contending that defendants were encroaching upon the suit property a suit came to be filed for injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit property. Suit is contested by the respondents by filing written statement. During the pendency of the suit an application for amendment came to be filed. As and by way of said amendment the petitioner wanted to incorporate certain averments as how the property in question was purchased by the defendant and other arguments regarding the documents relating to entries pertaining to the said property. The said paragraph has been permitted to be inserted by the amendment. The other paragraphs pertained to various transactions of gst 2 wp7350.10.sxw defendants regarding purchase and sale of property to various persons. The amendment application in so far as those paragraphs are concerned is rejected. Hence the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application in so far as para 4D to 4E is concerned. It is submitted that for bringing out the factual position amendment was necessary. 4. Mr.Bubna learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that the averments are pertaining to the transactions of defendants with various certain other persons and since those persons are not party to the present petition the amendment is not at all necessary. He further submits that the learned trial Court has therefore rightly rejected the application. 5. Perusal of the para which the petition seeks to incorporate by way of amendment and which has been rejected by learned trial Court would reveal that though the petitioner has given details about various transactions entered into by the defendants with various persons no relief is claimed against the said persons. The petitioner is seeking to incorporate those averments so as to show that if land owned by the defendants if compared with the lands sold to various persons then there is no land available with the defendants except piece of 150 sq.ft. Admittedly the trial of the suit is yet to commence. It is settled law that Courts have to take liberal view in so far as grant of amendment is concerned. Perusal of averments which are sought to incorporated would reveal that it cannot be said that they are not connected with the claim made by the petitioner in the suit. In so far as prejudice that is caused to the respondents is concerned same can be compensated by saddling costs on petitioner. In any case, defendants would be entitled to amend the written statement or file additional written statement so as to meet the challenges brought on record by way of amendment. 6. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause gst 3 wp7350.10.sxw (b). However same shall be subject to costs which are quantified at Rs.3000/-. Costs to be deposited in trial Court within a period of three weeks form today. On deposit of costs the respondents would be entitled to withdraw the same. The amendment be carried out within a period of three weeks from today. Needless to mention that the respondent-defendant would be at liberty to amend written statement or to file additional written statement so as to meet the challenges made by way of amendment. 7. Taking into consideration the aspect that an order of injunction is operating against defendant, learned trial Court is directed to expeditiously hear the suit and conclude the same within a period of six months from today. Parties to act on authenticated copy of order.