FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.8124 OF 2007 -----------------------------------:------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders. coram, appearances, Court’s orders : or directions and Registrar’s : orders. : -----------------------------------:------------------------------------- Mr.A.B.Borkar for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Venegavkar for the respondents. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED: 17TH MARCH, 2008 DATED: 17TH MARCH, 2008 DATED: 17TH MARCH, 2008 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 20.8.2007 by which the petitioner’s application seeking amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. By way of amendment the petitioner-plaintiff intends to change the description of the disputed toilet made in the plaint including in the prayer clause (a) thereof. In the suit the petitioner has prayed for injunction against the respondent-defendants restraining them from obstructing the petitioner from connecting an outlet of the newly constructed toilet to the main drainage through the passage between C.S.Nos.1989/4 and 1989/3. The toilet is specifically described as "new toilet" which the plaintiff seeks to change it as "earlier (old) toilet". There are, admittedly, two toilets, first being "old and common in C.S.No.1989/3" and, second, being "newly constructed toilet in C.S.No.1989/6", as described in the plaint. When the new toilet was constructed by the petitioner is not on record. Admittedly, the Corporation has issued notice to the plaintiff in respect of the new toilet, it, according to Corporation, being unauthorised. The petitioner has filed another suit against the Corporation challenging the said notice. In that suit the plaintiff has described the very same toilet as newly constructed toilet. From bare perusal of the description of the toilet in the present suit it is clear, if the petitioner-plaintiff is allowed to amend the description of the toilet from "new" to "earlier/old" that not would only create confusion about an identity of the toilet but would also amount to withdrawal of the admission that the said toilet has been constructed newly. Keeping that in view and considering the reasons recorded by the learned Judge rejecting the application, in my opinion, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. Hence the petition is dismissed. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)