1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3494 OF 2010 Modilal Kaluramm ...Petitioner vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Respondent Mr.M.A.Dudhane for the petitioner Mr.A.L.Patki for respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MAY 3, 2010 P.C.: 1 The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner filed a suit for challenging the action of the first respondent under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). After commencement of the trial, an application for amendment of the plaint was made by the petitioner. Additional paragraph was sought to be added by the amendment to the plaint containing allegation that 2nd and 3rd respondents have caused false notice under section 351 of the said Act to be issued. It was contended that the petitioner has obtained information under Right to Information Act that the concerned file is not found in the office of the first respondent. By the impugned order, the said application for amendment has been rejected. 2 I find no fault with the impugned order. If the petitioner wants to establish that the concerned file is missing, the petitioner can always call upon the first respondent-Corporation to produce the file. At the time of final hearing, the trial Court can always draw the 2 appropriate inference. Whether the notice under section 351 of the said Act is true or false will be decided by the trial Court at the time of final hearing. For that purpose, amendment will not be necessary. 3 Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE