1 (WP 3696 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3696 OF 2011 Mrs. Rukayya Wajeed Shaikh ...Petitioner Vs. Chunilal Prabhuram Unecha ...Respondent ----- Mr.S.V. Sadavarte for Petitioner ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 20th June, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court which was pleased to reject the application filed by the Petitioner for amendment of the plaint. An application for amendment was filed by the Petitioner on 18.3.2009, in which, it was contended that the Defendant had purchased two shops in the adjacent building. The particulars of which were mentioned in the application. It was submitted that , therefore, the Plaintiff may be permitted to amend his plaint for the purpose of bringing on record the subsequent events. The Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that since the Plaintiff did not claim the possession of the suit premises for her reasonable and 2 (WP 3696 of 2011) bonafide requirement as provided under section 16(1) (g), the said subsequent events were not relevant for the purpose of determination of the suit. 3. I have perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the suit is not filed by the Plaintiff for possession on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement. The subsequent events, therefore, are not relevant for just and proper adjudication of the suit. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order. Writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)