:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6949 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6949 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6949 OF 2007 Allied Constructions ..Petitioner versus Praful Mansukhlal Shah & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni i/b. Mr. A. M. Kulkarni for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Petitioner challenges the order allowing amendment. 2. Petitioner is a defendant. Respondents filed a suit against the petitioner alleging encroachment by the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner had demolished the compound wall of their site and was reconstructing the compound wall beyond his own property and in the property of the respondents. On the same set of facts, by way of an amendment, plaintiffs sought to introduce a new relief. Earlier, the respondents / plaintiffs had sought injunction restraining the :2: petitioner/ defendant from encroaching into the property only. Now, by the amendment the respondents sought a relief that the petitioner / defendant be directed to construct the compound wall at the original place and in case petitioner / defendant fails to do so, the respondents / plaintiffs be allowed to do so without any obstruction by the petitioner. Though it was strongly contended on behalf of the petitioner that the amendment changes the nature of suit, it does not appear that the amendment changes the nature of the suit. The nature of the suit remains the same, namely, that of protecting the property from encroachment. By the proposed amendment there is only a change in the nature of the relief which is not beyond limitation or barred by law. The petition is therefore dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)