1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6991 OF 2009 Sau.Shakuntala Nagendra Pardeshi and others Petitioners versus Sidram Nagappa Karape Respondent P.B.Kulkarni for petitioners. R.S.Alange for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd February 2010 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the narrow controversy involved, the petition is taken-up for final disposal. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs and the respondent is the original defendants. By the impugned order dated 25th March 2009 an application for amendment of the plaint made by the petitioners at Exhibit-66 has been rejected. The application has been rejected mainly on the ground that earlier application made by the petitioners at Exhibit-52 has been rejected and the said order has not been challenged. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has restricted the prayer in this petition to the extent of adding proposed paragraphs 5B, 5D and 5E. His submission is that the said amendment was not prayed for in the earlier application and, therefore, the said amendment ought to have been 2 granted. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit is not filed under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and the suit proceeds on the footing that the respondent has no protection of the said Act. He, therefore, submitted that the amendment is irrelevant and even otherwise, no case is made out for permitting the amendment. 2. A perusal of the proposed paragraph 5B shows that the petitioners want to incorporate the exact area of the portion allegedly encroached upon by the respondent. By the proposed paragraph 5D, the petitioners want to incorporate the allegation of breach of terms and conditions of the tenancy. These two paragraphs will have to be permitted to be added. As far as proposed paragraph 5E is concerned, the ground of bona fide requirement is sought to be introduced which is not at all relevant to the suit. Hence, the application for amendment of the plaint deserves to be allowed partly and I pass following order :- A) The impugned order is quashed and set aside; B) The application for amendment at Exhibit-66 is partly allowed by permitting the petitioners to incorporate the proposed paragraphs 5B and 5D; C) The amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date on which writ of this order is received by the Trial Court; 3 D) The respondent will be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint within eight weeks from the date on which amended plaint is served; E) All contentions of the respondent are kept open; F) The writ petition is partly allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)