1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7029 OF 2007 Jayanti Gagandas Patel Petitioner versus Sainath Hendar Raut and others Respondents K.S.Dewal for petitioner. Rajesh S. Khadepkar for respondents 1 to 8. Suhas Oak for respondent no.9 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 21st July 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner filed a suit for a declaration claiming that the development agreement and the power of attorneys referred to in the plaint which were executed by and between himself, the original owner and the defendants 1 to 8 are still in force, subsisting and valid and binding on the parties. Consequential relief of perpetual injunction was claimed. 2. The petitioner applied for an amendment of the plaint for impleading the Municipal Corporation as a party as well as for incorporating a challenge to notice issued by the Municipal Corporation calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation on the basis of a letter written by one of the defendants. In the said letter it was contended by the concerned defendant that the agreement subject matter of the suit has been cancelled. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner desired to 2 incorporate a prayer for a declaration that the said notice issued by the Municipal Corporation is illegal. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice was issued by the Municipal Corporation at the instance of the defendants and the notice was issued on the ground that there was termination of the agreement subject matter of the suit. He submitted that as the declaration has been claimed in the suit as regards the said agreement, the amendment ought to have been allowed. He has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Precious Finance Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2007[1]- Mh.L.J.-331). 4. I have considered the submissions. The Municipal Corporation issued a notice calling for an explanation of the petitioner as a request was made by one of the defendants for cancellation of the development permission on the ground that the development Agreement subject matter of the suit has been cancelled. The cause of action, if any, available to the petitioner against the Municipal Corporation is an independent cause of action. The Municipal Corporation being a planning authority has called for the explanation of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge was right in passing a discretionary order of declining to grant amendment. It is not possible to interfere with the said order in writ jurisdiction. However, the petitioner can always adopt appropriate remedy for challenging the action of Municipal Corporation. Subject to what is stated above, the writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)