**1** IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.8627/2009. Vishwambhar Digambar Walavalkar. ....Petitioner ­VERSUS­ Vijay Bhaskar Walavalkar. ....Respondent ........... Mr.S.B.Shetye, Advocate for the Petitioner. ........... CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. Dated 14th October, 2009. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the original Defendant and the Respondent is the original Plaintiff. A suit is filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff for injunction restraining the Petitioner from entering the suit property, from demolishing the structure thereon and from re­constructing the structure. 2 An application for amendment of plaint was made by the Respondent for incorporating the relief of mandatory injunction as well as relief of possession. By the impugned order, the said application has been allowed. 3 The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/ Defendant is that the suit is for simplicitor injunction and therefore, without claiming any declaration as regard the ownership, the Respondent could not have been allowed to amend the plaint. He submitted that the amendment will change the nature of the suit and if **2** the prayer of mandatory injunction and possession is incorporated, the Trial Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4 After having considered the submissions, I find that there is no error in the impugned order. The case of the Respondent is that in breach of the order of interim injunction, the Petitioner and his father have carried out and completed construction on the suit property. Therefore, a prayer is sought to be incorporated for demolition of the building and for delivery of possession of the land below the building. The Trial Court cannot be faulted with if such amendment is allowed. Whether the Respondent is entitled to a decree for possession and mandatory injunction is an issue which will have to be decided on merits. According to the Petitioner, the prayers for the decree of mandatory injunction and for possession have not been properly valued. If that is so, by filing additional Written Statement, the Petitioner can raise such contentions and the Trial Court is bound to deal with such contentions in accordance with law. No fault can be found with the amendment based on subsequent events. 5 Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. However, if the additional Written Statement is not filed, the Petitioner is entitled to file the same within a period of eight weeks from today. [A.S. OKA, J.] kps