1 wp-3957-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3957 of 2011 Gulabrao Baburao Kazranjule .. Petitioner Versus Bagaria Builders & Developers & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. A.V.Anturkar with Mr. P. P. Dalvi for the Petitioner Mr. V. A. Thorar Senior Advocate with Mr. Subhash Jha i/b M/s. Law Global for Respondent No.1 Mr. Tushar Pimple for Respondent Nos.2 to 11 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 1st DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. : 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 19-01-2011 passed by the Learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, by which Order, the application Exhibit 62 in Special Civil Suit No.203 of 2008 for amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate a prayer for specific performance, is allowed, in terms of the proposed amendments in the said Application. Whilst allowing the application, the Trial Court has observed that the averments in the plaint disclose that there are averments in respect of the alleged obligations on part of the Defendants, which they have not accordingly fulfilled, the proposed amendment is sought to satisfy more particularly these obligations. 2 I have gone through the averments in the plaint. On such perusal, the observations of the Trial Court in paragraph 12 cannot be said to be 2 wp-3957-11 without any basis, because the averment in fact discloses that the Plaintiff has averred in respect of the obligations of the Defendants under the agreement, of which specific performance is now sought by the proposed amendment. In fact the averments disclose that the pleadings leading to the prayer for specific performance are already there but the prayer remained to be made. In the light of the said observations, in my view, the objections raised on the touchstone of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC cannot be countenanced, it is questionable whether such a objection could be raised in respect of an amendment in a pending suit so as to incorporate a prayer for specific performance, when the averments to that effect are already in place. 3 Having perused the impugned order, in my view, there is no error of jurisdiction or any other irregularity committed by the Trial Court in passing the impugned order. The amendment in my view would lead to the complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. No case for interference is therefore made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 4 It is clarified that it would be open for the concerned Defendants to put in their written statement / additional written statement after the proposed amendment as contained in the application are carried out. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)