1 wp-10458-11.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10458 OF 2011 Tehmtan K. Engineer ..Petitioner Versus Dinyar P. Dubhash & Ors. ..Respondents Ms Usha Tiwari for the Petitioner Mr.Ramchandran N. i/b M/s. Narayanan & Narayanan for the Respondent No.3 CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 19th December, 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 3-2-2011 passed by the Learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay, by which Order, the Application for amendment of the plaint being Chamber Summons No.736 of 2010 in S.C. Suit No.1243 of 2010 came to be allowed and resultantly the plaint was allowed to be amended in terms of the schedule annexed to the Affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons. 2 The facts disclose that the amendments were necessitated in view of the statement made by the original Defendant before the Court that in the month of February he has created tenancy rights in favour of his Son, Burzin Tehemtan Engineer. The Plaintiff therefore, sought to incorporate averments and also a prayer in the said suit to the said 2 wp-10458-11.sxw effect. Though the suit as originally filed is for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from creating third party interest in respect of the premises which are the subject matter of the suit, the said amendments were necessitated in view of the subsequent developments which came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff on account of the statement made by the Defendant. 3 In my view, the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the nature of the suit would not change even if the amendments are allowed, cannot be faulted with in the context of the averments and the relief as originally prayed in the suit. It is required to be noted that the original Plaintiff to the suit is a co-owner who was seeking relief in respect of the property which is of the joint ownership. 4 However, though the amendment has been allowed, the issue as to whether the Bombay City Civil Court would continue to have jurisdiction or the issue as regards the valuation of the suit, are kept open to be agitated before the concerned Court. The Defendant in the suit is at liberty to file an appropriate application in that behalf. 5 With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ( R. M. SAVANT, J. )