1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1115 OF 2009 Pranav Agro Industries Ltd .. Petitioners Vs Annapurna Mahila Mandal .. Respondents Mr. Rajesh S Datar, Advocate for the petitioners. Smt Gauri Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 28/07/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waives service. Petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. The petitioners-plaintiffs have impugned an order dated 15.9.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Khandala, rejecting their application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short, “the Code”). Mr Datar, T 2 learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the date of the order is wrongly typed as 15.9.2007 instead of 15.9.2008. The petitioners can move the learned Judge, who passed the order seeking correction of the date. 4. The petitioners instituted Regular Civil Suit No.70 of 2008 in the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khandala for injunction restraining the respondent from creating any third party interest or alienating the suit property. The respondent is a public charitable trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and is the owner of the suit property. The respondents, in their written statement, raised several contentions, including that the suit was not maintainable and it ought to have been filed in the District Court or in the court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. It was further contended that the suit was barred for want of permission under section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. It was then contended that the respondent being a public trust, permission under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act was required to transfer its property and since such permission was not obtained the transaction was illegal. In view of the statements made in the written statement, the petitioners filed an application at Exhibit-44 seeking amendment of the plaint and sought to 3 incorporate the averments so as to make the suit maintainable. The petitioners, by way of amendment, sought to incorporate the pleadings stating that it was the responsibility of the respondents-defendants under the agreement to obtain the permission from the Charity Commissioner for sale of the suit property. The petitioners further sought to contend that it was the duty of the respondents to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property, however, the respondents avoided to execute the same. The petitioners further sought to contend that they require the suit property for educational purposes and, therefore, if the suit property is not sold to the petitioners, the petitioners would suffer grave and irreparable loss. Then, they sought to contend that the petitioners were required to file the suit seeking direction against the respondents to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the suit property after obtaining permission of the Charity Commissioner and also other permissions. Insofar as valuation of the suit property is concerned, the petitioners sought to value the suit at Rs.2.35 crores. The petitioners also sought to incorporate the prayer seeking direction to the respondents to execute sale deed in respect of the suit property after obtaining permission from the Charity Commissioner. That application has been rejected by the impugned order mainly on the ground that if the amendment is 4 allowed, the court dealing with the suit would not have a jurisdiction to entertain the same. In my opinion, merely because the jurisdiction is likely to be changed by allowing the amendment, it cannot be rejected if the amendment is otherwise necessary for determining the real question in controversy and would not cause injustice or prejudice to the defendant. In the facts of the present case, I am satisfied that the amendment would help in complete determination of all issues and it would avoid unnecessary multiplication of the litigation. In my opinion, the Court below ought to have granted the amendment on payment of costs. In the circumstances, the order dated 15.9.2007 is set aside. The plaintiff is allowed to carry out the amendment within a period of four weeks from today subject to payment of costs of Rs.3000/- to the respondent before carrying out the amendment. The rule is, accordingly, made absolute. No costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.) 5