1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6020 OF 2009 Shri Satish Rama Punja, ) age 47 adult, Occu : Business, ) residing at 96/B/1, Agra Road, ) Vanjarpatti Naka, Bhiwandi, ) Tal. Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane. )... Petitioner Vs 1. The Commissioner, ) Bhiwandi Nizampur City Mahanagarpalika, ) Bhiwandi, Old S.T. Stand, Kapkaneri, ) Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane. ) 2. Shri Ajit Dynanoba Chavan, ) aged 41 yrs., Occu : Business, ) residing at Municipal House No.819/11, ) Safalya Bldg., Kasaralley, Bhiwandi, ) Dist. Thane. )... Respondents -- Shri K.P. Mali for the Petitioner. Shri N.R. Bubna for Respondent No.1. Shri Girish G. Togani for Respondent No.2. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 5TH JANUARY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : Learned counsel appearing for the parties. Taken up for final disposal. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff. The Petitioner filed the suit for declaration that the notice dated 29th January, 2008 issued by the 1st Respondent was illegal. The case of the Petitioner is that he is the owner possessing the suit property, more particularly described in the Plaint. The notice dated 29th January, 2008 was issued by the 1st Respondent calling upon the Petitioner to produce documents relating to 2 the suit property. The case of the Petitioner is that along with the reply dated 4th February, 2008, necessary documents were submitted to the 1st Respondent. In Paragraph 8 of the Plaint, it is stated that there was another notice issued by the 1st Respondent to the Petitioner on 28th February, 2008. 2. An application was made by the Petitioner at Exhibit-35 seeking permission to amend the Plaint. Amendment was sought for correcting description of the suit property in the Plaint and for specifically challenging the notice dated 28th February, 2008. The Petitioner also prayed for impleading one Raghunath Kunjan Rai as a party to the suit. By the impugned judgment and order, the said application has been rejected by the trial Court. The order of rejection was passed on the ground that the application was not verified in accordance with Rule 15 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Code” ). The learned trial Judge has observed that the Petitioner has not pleaded necessary facts giving rise to the cause of action for seeking relief of declaration. The learned trial Judge observed that one Ajit Dynanoba Chavan was already impleaded as the 2nd Defendant and a prayer was made in the application for impleading Raghunath Kunjan Rai as the 2nd Defendant. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2008. An application for amendment was moved in September, 2008. He submitted that there is already an 3 averment in Paragraph 8 of the Plaint in which it is contended that the notice dated 28th February, 2008 is illegal. He submitted that the amendment relating to description of the suit property is formal in nature. He submitted that the Petitioner be permitted to implead the said Raghunath Kunjan Rai as a party to the suit. He submitted that the application has been rejected by the trial Court on hyper technical ground. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent opposed the application and submitted that no interference is called for. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent supported the impugned order by submitting that there are no material averments incorporated in the Plaint in support of the challenge to the notice dated 28th February, 2008. He submitted that the Petitioner has not disclosed as to how the said Raghunath Kunjan Rai is either a necessary or a proper party. 5. By an order dated 14th August, 2009, this Court rejected the prayer for impleading the said Raghunath Kunjan Rai as a party Defendant. However, notice was issued confined to other prayers in the application at Exhibit-35. 6. Perusal of the application Exhibit-35 shows that there are no averments made as to how the said Raghunath Kunjan Rai is either a necessary or a proper party. The Petitioner has not even disclosed as to what is the connection of the said Raghunath Kunjan Rai with the property, subject matter of dispute in the suit. That is the reason why the 4 trial Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for impleading the said Raghunath Kunjan Rai as a party. 7. Other prayer in the application Exhibit-35 is for correcting the description of the suit property. The application for amendment was filed few months after the institution of the suit and therefore, the said prayer ought to have been granted. As far as the ground of permission to incorporate the challenge to the notice dated 28th February, 2008 is concerned, in Paragraph 8 of the Plaint, it is already alleged that the said notice is illegal. Therefore, that part of the amendment ought to have been allowed. 8. It must be noted here that the trial Court has adopted hyper- technical approach. The trial Court has completely ignored the well settled principles relating to amendment of pleadings. This was a case where the trial Court ought to have adopted a liberal approach. Hence, I pass the following order. (a) The impugned order dated 17th February, 2009 is quashed and set aside. (b) The application at Exhibit-35 is partly allowed. It is clarified that except the prayer for impleading one Raghunath Kunjan Rai as a party Defendant, the other prayers in the said Application Exhibit-35 are allowed. 5 (c) Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order by the trial Court. (d) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (e) No order as to costs. JUDGE