1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6776 OF 2009 Jaywant Ganpat Khamkar & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Hindurao Ganapati Pawar & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Vaibhav Mehta for the petitioners. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4 th August 2009. P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petition is taken up for admission. 2. The petitioners are the original defendants. By filing this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged an order passed by the trial Court by which the original plaintiffs have been permitted to carry out the amendment to the plaint. 3. Initially, a suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the original plaintiffs. The suit proceeds on the footing that the 2 plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property. By the amendment sought to be carried out, the original plaintiffs want to contend that on 23 rd May 2007, during the pendency of the suit, they were dispossessed. Therefore, by adding necessary averments, the plaintiffs desire to incorporate a prayer for restoration of possession. 4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (original defendants) is that by the proposed amendment the original plaintiffs are trying to convert the suit into a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, though such suit is barred by limitation long back. His second submission is that the nature of suit will undergo a complete change and therefore such amendment could not have been allowed in exercise of powers under Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 5. I have considered the submissions. In the impugned order the trial Court has come to a conclusion that merely because a declaration of 3 title is not sought that does not mean that a suit for possession is always one under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In fact, it is not the case made out by the plaintiffs that by carrying out amendment they want ot convert the suit into one under section 6 of the said Act of 1963. The amendment is simple. The case of the plaintiffs is that they have been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs are seeking the restoration of possession. Such amendment will not change the nature of the suit. Even if amendment is allowed, all objections of the petitioners-defendants to the maintainability of the suit and even the objection regarding bar of limitation always remain open. No case for interference is made out. Writ petition is rejected. However, it will be open for the petitioners to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and to raise all permissible contentions. (A.S.OKA,J)