1 wp-9805-11.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9805 OF 2011 Aarti Balkrishna Tandel & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Muritimant Balkrishna Tandel & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. M. S. Kadu for the Petitioners CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 12th December 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 17-9-2011 passed by the Learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, by which Order, the Application, Exhibit 45 filed in Special Civil Suit No.437 of 2010 for amendment of the plaint filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein i.e. the original Plaintiffs, came to be allowed and resultantly additional paragraphs as well as additional prayers were allowed to be incorporated in the plaint. 2 The suit as originally filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein who are the original Plaintiffs being Special Civil Suit No.437 of 2010, has been filed for a declaration that the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are tresspassers in Shop No.A/006, ground floor A-Wing, Sarvodaya Park Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Kalyan. 3 The instant application for amendment was filed to incorporate two more properties in respect of which the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the Plaintiffs want to claim relief for a declaration. The averment in the proposed 2 wp-9805-11.sxw amendment discloses that it is the case of the Plaintiffs that the said two properties have been bought out of HUF funds and the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the joint owners. The purchase of said two properties i.e. the flats in question and the alleged funding for the same has been set out in the proposed amendment. 4 The Trial Court considering the said Application for amendment has by the impugned order allowed the same. The gist of the reasoning of the Trial Court is that by the inclusion of the two more properties which are mentioned in the proposed amendment, the nature of the suit does not change as it still remain one for declaration and perpetual injunction. 5 Having gone through the proposed amendment and keeping in my mind the well settled principles that the merits of the amendment need not be gone into at the stage of consideration of application for an amendment, in my view, the impugned Order cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 6 It would be open for the Petitioners to file their Written Statement / Additional Written Statement dealing with the amended plaint after the amendments are carried on. 7 All the contentions of the parties on merits are kept open for being agitated in the said suit. [R.M.SAVANT, J]