wp1204.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1204 OF 2011 Punja Paraji Doiphode ...Petitioner Versus Arsu Khandu Doiphode ...Respondent ..... Mr. L.B. Palod, advocate for the petitioner ..... CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 21st FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 In the suit for temporary injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff he complained of subsequent encroachment by breaking open a bandh and sought restoration of alleged encroached portion. The contention of advocate Shri Palod is that the allegations sought to be added by amendment are ex-facie vague and do not deserve any credence. He further points out that earlier application for measurement was made with similar contention and that was rejected. My attention is invited to the provision of Order 7 Rule 3 of C.P.C. to urge that in absence of prayer for measurement, the cognizance of such prayer could not have been taken. wp1204.11 -2- 2 Trial Court has allowed amendment of respondent. All contentions pertain to the merits and controversy and raised in this petition can be raised before the trial court by the petitioner in the suit. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order. Petition is rejected. ( B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) rlj/