1 wp 3838-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3838 OF 2010 Mr.Kamlesh Daftari ...Petitioner vs. Mr.Harishchandra Shautan Dhobi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Navshal Engineer with Mr.K. Mehta, Raj Patel i/b. M/s.Pravin Mehta & Mithi & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.K.R. Tiwari i/b. Mr.Akhilesh Upadhya for Respondent No.1. Ms.K.K. Soran for Respondent No.2. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED : JANUARY 10, 2011 P.C :- 1 By the present petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 12th March, 2010 thereby allowing chamber Summons No.504/2009 in Long Cause Suit No.5071/2005 vide which the motion made by the respondent-plaintiff for amendment of plaint came to be allowed. 2 The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit 2 wp 3838-2010 initially against the original defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 thereby seeking an order restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff on the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, the chamber summons was moved for impleading the defendant nos.4 and 5 as party defendants. Chamber Summons is allowed. Hence, the present petition. 3 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by the amendment which is allowed, an entirely new cause of action has been permitted to be introduced by the learned trial court. It is submitted that initially, a suit was only against the Corporation, the State and one other person. However, subsequently, the present petitioner along with one other defendant have been permitted to be impleaded who have no concern with the original suit of the plaintiff. 4 The learned Counsel relies on the judgment 3 wp 3838-2010 of this court in the case of Umabai vs. Bhau Balwant and others (The Indian Law Reports, Vol.XXXIV Page 358) and of the Apex Court in the Alkapuri Co- operative Housing Society Limited vs. Jayantibhai Naginbhai (deceased) through Lrs., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 467. No doubt that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on aforesaid judgments. In so far as the judgment of this Court is concerned, it upholds that the plaintiff may in one action unite several causes of action against several defendants provided that all such defendants are jointly liable in respect of each and all of such causes of action . 5 In the present case, it can clearly be seen that the learned trial Court has found that though initial case of the plaintiff was against the original defendants restraining them from obstructing with the possession of the plaintiff, from the pleadings it was found that during the pendency of the suit, the added defendants had 4 wp 3838-2010 encroached upon part of the suit property and as such, the plaintiff found it necessary to amend the plaint so as to incorporate the prayer regarding the recovery of possession. It can thus clearly be seen that according to the plaintiffs, the added respondents have encroached upon the part of the suit property and therefore, it has become necessary to make a prayer for recovery of possession. 6 In so far as the judgment of the Apex Court Alkapuri Co-operative Housing Society Limited (supra) on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies, in the said judgment, the Apex Court has clearly held in para 18 that application for amendment of the plaint seeking to introduce a cause of action, which has arisen during the pendency of the suit would stand a different footing. In the case before the Apex Court, the relief which was sought to be introduced by amendment was existing prior to the filing of the suit, in question, and not only that but for the 5 wp 3838-2010 same relief, a suit was also filed earlier by the predecessor in title of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The present case arises out of subsequent events which, according to the plaintiff, have taken place during the pendency of the suit which are necessitated amendment. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the discretion which has been exercised by the learned trial court in allowing the amendment has been exercised in the perverse manner so as to warrant interference. 7 Hence, writ petition is rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (B.R. GAVAI, J.)