1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 51 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 139 OF 2000 Kedari Kondiba Salokhe since deceased through L.r. Baburao Kedari Salokhe ........Applicant versus Dattatraya Baburao Raut ........Respondent. Mrs. Anita Patil i/b S.J.Ghogare adv. for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI,J. DATED : 14th September, 2010. P.C.: Leave to correct the date is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 1. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking to amend the plaint and also for a direction to accordingly amend the decree. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 10th March 1987. The said suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 15­3­1995. The appeal preferred by the respondent was also dismissed. The respondent being aggrieved thereby filed second appeal before this court and the same was also rejected. 3. It appears that when the applicant put the decree in 2 execution, objection was raised by the respondent regarding the description of the suit property,. Objection raised by the respondent was rejected by the learned executing court. Being aggrieved thereby the writ petition was filed before this court by the respondent and the same was allowed. Being aggrieved thereby the present applicant preferred the SLP before the Apex court. In the said SLP the Apex court was pleased to pass the following order. “Heard. Leave granted. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we feel the controversy can be best solved if the appellants file an appropriate application before the High Court in Second Appeal No. 139 of 2000 for necessary corrections, as sought to be introduced because of purported change of the survey numbers. If such an application is filed, ti would be appropriate for the High Court to dispose of the same in accordance with law as early as practicable. The appeal is disposed of accordingly”. 4. In pursuance of the leave granted by the Apex court the applicant has moved this court. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the suit property described in the plaint was on the basis of the entries in the revenue record. It is submitted that subsequently on account of the suit property getting a non agricultural status, the properties were renumbered and was given CTS number. It is 3 therefore submitted that it is necessary to amend the plaint in the interest of justice. 6. Mr. Patwardhan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has vehementally opposed the application. He states that the application at the belated stage to amend the plaint filed in 1987 would not be permissible in law. He is therefore prayed for rejecting the application. 7. It is not disputed that the suit property which was decreed by the learned trial court and which decree has been affirmed upto this court, is the same property which was described in the execution proceedings. However it appears that due to subsequent development i.e. the property acquiring non agricultural status and it being renumbered as CTS, the decree could not be executed. The decree which has been affirmed upto this court cannot be permitted to be frustrated on a hyper technical objection. In that view of the matter I am inclined to allow the application. Application is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). (B. R. GAVAI, J.)