1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3559 OF 2009 1. Pandurang Madan Shinde, 2. Abhishek Sanjay Bahadare, 3. Yogesh Sanjay Bahadare, Nos. 2 & 3 minors through their guardian Meenabai Sanjay Bahadare. All R/o. Chicholi (Deodari), Po. Kothali Bk. Tq. Barshitakli, Distt. Akola. 4. Sudam Madan Shinde, C/o. Murliwala Textile, B-11/3, Ichalkaranji Textile Market, (BJP Market), Ichalkaranji – 416 115, Distt. Kolhapur. .. PETITIONERS. // VERSUS // 1. Ganesh calling himself as son of Narayan Bahadare, R/o. Chicholi (Deodari), Po. Kothali Bk. Tq. Barshitakli, Distt. Akola. 2. Narayan Ganpat Bahadare, R/o. Chicholi (Deodari), Po. Kothali Bk. Tq. Barshitakli, Distt. Akola. .... RESPONDENT. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.S.Chandurkar, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 29, 2009. 2 1. This petition by newly added defendants is directed against order passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Barshitakli granting the plaintiff permission for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff had sought to add the petitioners as co-defendants since original defendant No. 1 had transferred property to the petitioners during pendency of the suit, which fact is not disputed. The learned counsel for the petitioners rightly pointed out that the amendment is half baked, since there is no prayer against the petitioners regarding setting aside sale deeds etc. This is a risk which had been taken by the plaintiff, in spite of specific objection raised by the petitioners. 2. The learned trial Judge shall bear in mind that in spite of objection, the plaintiff has not cared to seek any relief against the petitioners. Therefore, he may not permit the plaintiff to seek any further amendment in future on this ground. There is no reason to interfere in the interlocutory order passed by the learned Judge. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.