1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition no. 2271 of 2011 Fulsingh Govardhan Jadhav. Vs. Radhakisan Lachiram Rathod. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. L.A. Mohta, Adv for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Dhengale, Adv. for respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 7 th October, 2011. Heard. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the trial court on 8.3.2011 allowing an amendment application filed by the respondent for amendment of the plaint. It appears that the trial court had rightly allowed the amendment application as the plaintiff-respondent had already challenged the sale deed dated 12.11.2002 in the pleading but inadvertently, a declaration in regard to the said sale deed was not sought by a prayer in the plaint. The trial court rightly considered that no new theory or case was sought to be made out by the respondent-plaintiff and he merely wanted to incorporate a prayer clause on the basis of the pleadings already made. The trial court found that the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the suit and also could not have caused grave and serious prejudice to the petitioner. The order passed by the trial court appears to be just and proper. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the petitioner may consequentially amend the written statement. JUDGE Hirekhan.