1 ao789-11 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.789 OF 2011 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.870 OF 2010 IN S.C. SUIT NO.364 OF 2010 Mayuri Polash Mandal, through C.A. Polash Kartik Mandal ..Appellant. V/s. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (MHADA) & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Ashwin R. Rana for appellant. Mr. V.M.Parshurami for respondent No.1. Mr. Neville Deboo for respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : SMT. R.S. DALVI, J. DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. :- 1. The appeal is against the order refusing the amendment of a single word which is the first word of the plaint filed in the above suit. Admittedly, the plaintiff is claiming to be in use, occupation and possession of the premises since 2005 in the suit filed by her in the year 2010. The appellant claims to be in continuous possession from 2005 2 ao789-11 till 2009. The appellant has also prima facie shown such possession incidentally, by the written statement filed by the defendant No.2 himself, who has opposed the amendment and who has sought to defend this appeal also. The merits of the possession of the appellant-plaintiff would be seen in the trial. However, an inadvertent error mentioning “Till” to be substituted with “Since” cannot be disallowed by a Court so that the parties may not put their case on merits. Further, it does not stand to reason that in a suit filed in 2010 possession can be claimed by the plaintiff only for 5 years prior to the proceedings. The parties are required to be heard on merits, hence the order refusing the amendment is set aside. The appellant-plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint as prayed. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. (SMT. R.S. DALVI, J)