IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1287 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1287 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1287 OF 2008 Shri Vijay Balasaheb Gite ... Petitioner Vs. M/s Transamerica Appel ... Respondents Distribution Finance Ltd. Mr. V.G. Mujumdar for Petitioner. Ms. Shyamali Hajela a/w Premjit S. Manjrekar i/by H. & M. Legal Associates for Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. : P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. : P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE DATE DATE : 2ND MAY, 2008 : 2ND MAY, 2008 : 2ND MAY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. :- :- :- 1. Ms. Shyamali Hajela, learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. Rule returnable today. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioner who is the original plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No. 617 of 2002 has challenged the order passed by the trial Court dated 17/11/2007 below Exhibit 31 in the aforesaid suit. The petitioner- original plaintiff gave an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant has delivered the possession of the suit premises to 2 the plaintiff and therefore now the plaintiff may be permitted the amend the plaint by demanding mesne profits. He, therefore wants to amend the plaint for relief of mesne profits, maintenance charges etc. and for that purpose amendment in the plaint was sought for. 3. The original defendant resisted the said application on the ground that the claim of the plaintiff in this behalf is time barred and therefore such amendment should not be granted. 4. Mr. Mujumdar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in the original plaint, plaintiff has already prayed for possession as well as for mesne profits. It is submitted that he wants go give better particulars in this behalf and in view of the subsequent event of handing over of possession, he is also praying for damages and other ancillary charges. 5. Ms.Shyamli Hajela, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claim in this behalf has now become time barred. She submitted that she has no objection if the amendment is allowed subject to keeping the question of 3 limitation open. She also submitted that the defendant may also be permitted to file additional written statement. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint subject to question of limitation and the aspect about the limitation is kept open at the trial. In view of above, plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint and the defendant is also permitted to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. 7. The Petitioner may amend the plaint within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the writ of this Court by the trial Court. The defendant thereafter may file additional written statement to the amended lplaint. The petition is accordingly disposed of, however with no order as to costs. 8. Rule is made absolute in above terms. ( P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)