1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5116 OF 2008 Layakali Mahboob Musaldar ...Petitioner Versus Ganesh Gulabrao Dongare and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. Boiwar h/f Mr. M.A. Kandharkar, advocate for the petitioner ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 13TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the learned C.J.S.D. Omerga below Exh.76 in Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 2006. 2 It is not necessary to go into the details of the facts, since the application was filed by the present petitioner with prayer to allow the petitioner to add para 8 of the application. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that certain things came to know by the petitioner after the court Commissioner has submitted her report and therefore, by proper amendment the petitioner wants to amend the plaint. Learned counsel invited my attention to the para 7 and 8 of the original application which are at pages 26 and 27 of the compilation 2 and submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if he is allowed to amend the plaint. 3 After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and after perusal of the reasons given by the trial court in the order dated 3.3.2008, I do not think that the case is made out to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. In para 9 of the impugned order, the court has recorded that the contention of original defendant No.4 that prejudice would be caused to the contesting defendant if the amendment is made in the plaint. In para 10, the learned Judge has observed that the application for amendment of the suit is filed only to prolong the suit. 4 On independent scrutiny of the para 7 and 8 of the application and looking to the averments therein, I find that the para 7 which the plaintiff-petitioner wish to add to the plaint, will certainly change the nature of the main suit and would cause prejudice to respondents. The learned Judge on the strength of the pleading and evidence brought before him has taken possible view, I do not think any perversity in the order and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated. ***** 3