1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5654/2011 (LEELABAI YASHWANT BORKAR VERSUS VANITA YASHWANT DESHKAR & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.G. Jetha, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 30 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 07.09.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner is the daughter of original plaintiff by name Annaji. Annaji had filed a suit against his son Yashwant for a declaration that the sale-deed executed by him in favour of Yashwant on 05.11.2004 was illegal, sham and void. During the pendency of the suit, Annaji died and the petitioner was brought on record as his legal heir. Similarly Yashwant also died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs, Smt. Vanita and his son and daughter, were brought on record as the defendants. The petitioner filed an amendment application stating therein that during his lifetime, Annaji had executed a will dated 26.03.2004 bequeathing the suit property in her favour. The amendment application was strongly opposed by the defendants- respondents. The trial Court, by the order dated 07.09.2011, rejected the amendment application. 2 The Trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the amendment application. The suit filed by Annaji against Yashwant was for a declaration that the sale-deed executed by him in favour of Yashwant on 05.11.2004 was illegal, sham and void. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner wanted to plead and in effect seek a declaration of ownership over the suit property on the basis of the will dated 26.03.2004. The declaration sought by the petitioner by the proposed amendment naturally changed the nature of the suit. The petitioner had other remedies open for seeking the declaration, which was in effect sought by the proposed amendment. However, the proposed amendment surely changed the nature of the suit and was likely to cause grave and severe prejudice to the defendants. Since the proposed amendment was changing the nature of the suit, the trial Court rightly rejected the amendment application. There is no error, much less, a jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 07.09.2011. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE