1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5857 OF 2011 M/s. Imperial Real Estate & Others ..Petitioners Versus Vijay Marutirao Dhanwatay ...Respondent Mr.P.S.Dani for the Petitioners Mr.Javed Akhar Khan for the Respondent CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 9th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondent herein filed RAE&R Suit No.543/992 of 2008 in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai for recovery and possession against the petitioner no.1, a partnership firm. Subsequently, the respondent applied for amendment of the plaint by application at Exhibit 29 so as to join petitioner nos.2 and 3, as also for making some other amendments in the text of the plaint. That application was granted by order dated 30th March, 2011, against which the petitioners filed Revision Application No.134 of 2011 before the 2 Division Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. The said Court by its order dated 15th June, 2011 dismissed the said revision application. The Order dated 15th June, 2011 is challenged by this petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides. The suit came to be filed initially against the petitioner no.1. After the respondent realized that the partners are to be added, the request for addition of partners as petitioners was made. The respondent felt on the basis of the text of the written statement that the petitioner no.1 is trying to deny the title and therefore by way of abundant precaution the amendment was sought to be introduced in connection with the said denial. The respondent thought to bring on record certain factual developments as regards residence of certain persons so as to bring on record the additional information as to how the respondent is suffering inconvenience and how he is in need of the premises on the grounds of bonafide requirement. All the points were considered favourably and the application for amendment was granted by the learned trial Judge and confirmed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai. 3 3. Before this Court, learned Advocate Mr. Dani, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that in view of the provisions of Order 30 Rule 1, the joining of the partners at a later stage is not permissible as some rights have accrued in favour of the partners. I am not inclined to accept this argument. The respondent tried to rectify his mistake by joining the partners. In any case, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner nos.2 and 3. So far as the other points, on which the amendment is sought, both the courts, by giving detail reasons accepted the contention of the respondent. Having perused the scope of the text of the amendment, I am inclined to observe that there is no need to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. It is necessary to add the partners to resolve the real controversy between the parties. Hence I pass the following order. ORDER Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) 4