1 wp-9632-11.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9632 OF 2011 Ratansi P. Nisar ..Petitioner Versus Brahmadeo J. Shukla & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.T.G.Vora with Ms Dipti Shah for the Petitioner Mr. V.R.Tripathi i/b M/s. V.R.Tripathi & Associates Mr. S.P.Thorat for the Respondent No.2 Mr. Amit Potnis i/b M/s. Tamhane & Co. for the Respondent No.3 CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 19th December, 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 7-9-2011 passed by the Learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay, by which Order, the amendment application being Chamber Summons No.184 of 2011 in S.C.Suit No.496 of 2010, for amendment of the plaint came to be allowed in terms of the proposed amendment as contained in the schedule to the affidavit in support of the said Chamber Summons. 2 The Respondent No.1 herein is the Original Plaintiff who has filed 2 wp-9632-11.sxw the S.C.Suit No.496 of 2010 for declaration that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 annexed to the plaint at Exhibit B, for providing alternate premises in the new building after reconstruction under Regulation 33(7) is valid, subsisting and binding on the Defendant No.1 in the suit being successor-in-title of the then Developer M/s. Sushank Builders P. Ltd. and further declaration sought by way of prayer clause (b) that the name of the Defendant No. 3/Petitioner is illegally incorporated as eligible occupant in Annexure-II. By way of Prayer clause (c) an injunction has been sought against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 that they be restrained from allotting flat in the new building to the Defendant No.3/Petitioner. 3 In the said suit, a Notice of Motion came to be filed by the Plaintiff for interim relief. In the affidavit in reply to the said Notice of Motion it was stated on behalf of the Defendant No.1 that the flat in question has already been allotted to the Defendant No.3. This resulted in the instant amendment application being Chamber Summons No.184 of 2011 being filed by the Plaintiff for amendment of the plaint in terms of the stand taken by the Defendant No.3/Petitioner. Now by the proposed amendment averments in respect of the allotment to the Defendant No.3/Petitioner are sought to be incorporated as also the prayer clause (a-i) for seeking possession from the Defendant No. 3 wp-9632-11.sxw 3/Petitioner is sought to be incorporated. The Trial Court allowed the said Chamber Summons inter alia holding that by the amendments the nature of the suit does not change and no prejudice would be caused to the Defendants. 4 In my view, considering the reliefs as originally sought in the suit, wherein a declaration is sought against the Defendant No.3/Petitioner, the amendment sought in the plaint and the grant of the same by the Trial Court cannot be faulted with. It is required to be noted that there are already averments in the plaint as to why the Defendant No. 3/Petitioner is not entitled to the allotment of the flat in question, in as much as the inclusion of the name of the Defendant No.3/Petitioner in Annexure-II, has been challenged in the said suit. 5 It is sought to be contended by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that by allowing the amendments, the nature of the suit in question would change. In my view, for the reasons mentioned herein above, the said submission cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, no case for interference in the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 6 However, the issue as to whether on amendment the Bombay City Civil Court would continue to have the jurisdiction as also the issue as regards valuation of the suit, is kept open for being agitated before the 4 wp-9632-11.sxw concerned Court at the appropriate stage. The parties are at liberty to file an appropriate application in that behalf. 7 With the aforesaid observations the Writ Petition is dismissed. ( R. M. SAVANT, J. )