1 WP-8786.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8786 OF 2011 Shri Ratan Tukaram Nanavare : Petitioner versus Shri Madhukar Baburao Waghmare & ors. : Respondents. Mr. Rahul S Kadam for the Petitioner Mr. P B Gujar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 22nd November 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 29/8/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indapure by which order the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the Petitioner came to be rejected. The said amendment was sought on the basis of a map prepared by the T.I.L.R. which the Petitioner/Plaintiff has procured after the suit was filed. It is required to be noted that by the amendment sought, the Petitioner wants to amend the plaint to the following effect that the land bearing Gat No.825 (Old No.1901) is below the land bearing Gat Nos.793 to 801 (Old Nos.1869 to 1877). The land bearing Gat No.825 belongs to the Defendant. As can be seen from the averments made in Para 4 of the Plaint, the Plaintiff averred that the land of the Defendants is 2 km away and that the Defendants had no right in respect of the land in question of the Petitioner. The trial Court, apart from considering the fact that the said amendment was moved after the suit had 2 WP-8786.11.sxw commenced, has also bserved that it has not been proved by the plaintiff that the said amendment was necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved between the parties. 2 The learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2005) 13 SCC 89 in the matter of Sajjan Kumar v/s Raju Kishan to support his submission that the amendment in the description of the property can be even moved at the appellate stage. 3 Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409 in the matter of Vidyabai and ors v/s Padmalatha and anr. wherein it has been held that hearing of the suit is deemed to have commenced when the Issues are framed. 4 In my view, the trial Court considering the averments in the Plaint has rightly recorded a finding that it has not been proved that how the said amendment was necessary for adjudication of the Issues involved in the Suit. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]