1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1320/2009 (Savita Udaybhan Chachda VERSUS Bharat Dashrath Tikle & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Neeraj Patil, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 8, 2009. Heard Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Judge, Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur on 05.02.2009 granting permission to the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 to carry out consequential amendment. It appears that an application for amendment of plaint was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that the proposed amendment was necessary for 2 determination of the real controversy in the suit. The amendment application was filed by the plaintiff at the stage of evidence. By the proposed amendment, it was sought to be stated that after the death of Parvatibai on 01.12.2001, two other partners were included in the partnership and after 04.12.2001 only four persons remained to be the partners of the firm. It was stated in the proposed amendment that the legal representatives of deceased Dashrath Tikle have no control over the suit premises after 04.12.2001. The amendment application was allowed by the Judge, Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur. After the amendment was carried out, the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 also filed an application seeking permission for a consequential amendment. The trial Court, by the impugned order dated 05.02.2009, granted the consequential amendment. 3 From a reading of the consequential amendment, it is clear that the proposed consequential amendment had a relevance to the amended pleadings. The trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the application for consequential amendment was pertaining to the amendment only and, therefore, the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 had a right to carry out the consequential amendment. There is no error whatsoever in the order passed by the Judge, Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur on 05.02.2009, much less, a jurisdictional error, so as to interfere with the same. The judgment reported in AIR 2002 SC 1003 is not of any assistance to the case of the petitioner. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE