:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3074 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.2128 OF 2005 M/s.All Well Builders Corporation through its Partner Mr.M.P.Lunawat .. Applicant. Vs. Arun H.Bhat and Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.S.S.Kanetkar for the applicant. Mr.A.H.Palekar for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 3RD MARCH, 2009. DATED : 3RD MARCH, 2009. DATED : 3RD MARCH, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this civil application the applicant has prayed for amendment of his plaint. He seeks to add the following paragraph as paragraph 6(E) of the plaint: (6(E) "After disposal of Spl.Civil Suit No.309 of 2000 on 13.7.2004 by the trial Court, Original Defendants indulged into unauthorised alterations of windows in the suit flat. The same is comprised of demolition of the support walls of the two windows on the Eastern side of the suit flat. After demolition in place of demolished portion of window walls was converted into three cages to accommodate pets (dogs) of Respondents. Before or even after having carried out the said alterations Respondents had never intimated, much less sought consent from the present Appellant/Petitioner, the lawful owner of the suit flat. There are about 7/8 ferocious dogs kept by Respondents. No attention is paid by Respondents to the sustained defecation/urination by their pets in the open spaces surrounding the building ‘Indumati Apartments’ resulting into ceaseless nuisance/annoyance to other occupants of ‘Indumati Apartments’ which in fact is wrongful restraint on their free :2: :2: :2: movements in the open spaces abutting the structure of ‘Indumati Apartment’. The resultant unclean, polluted, unhygienic surroundings and uncontrolled free movements of dogs of Respondents have posed a great health hazard to other occupants of ‘Indumati Apartments’. Such sustained unauthorised acts of nuisance/annoyance on part of Respondents entitle the present Appellant/Petitioner to the reliefs of cancellation/termination of the suit agreement dt.5.4.1996, forfeiture of the money paid so far by Respondents and for possession of the suit flat". 3. The applicant instituted a suit for declaration and possession of the suit flat, based on an agreement dated 11.6.1996. By this agreement the respondents agreed to purchase the suit flat. Admittedly the respondent was put in possession of the suit flat. According to the applicant the entire consideration was not paid and hence he filed the present suit. The main prayer in the suit was the declaration that in view of the breach of the conditions in the agreement committed by the respondents, the agreement dated 11.6.1996 stands cancelled and for possession of the suit flat. The trial Court decreed the suit partially. The prayer for the possession has, however, been rejected. The respondents were directed to deposit the entire amount of consideration. This court is informed that the respondents have already deposited the entire decretal amount as per the impugned judgment. 4. Mr.Kanetkar, learned counsel for the :3: :3: :3: applicant submitted that if the amendment is allowed no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the respondents since the applicants seek to bring on record the subsequent events. He submitted that it is well settled that as long as no right accrued to the party is taken away or admissions given in the original pleadings are not withdrawn, the amendments should be liberally granted even in appeal. In my opinion, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by Mr.Kanetkar are devoid of merits and deserve to be rejected outright. In paragraph 6(E) the applicant has alleged that the respondents have made some unauthorised alterations by removing support walls and fixed windows and for removal of dogs belonging to the respondents who create nuisance to the other occupants of the building. In my opinion, this amendment has absolutely no connection with the main prayer in the suit and even if the allegations made in paragraph 6(E) are proved, no relief can be granted in favour of the applicants. In my opinion, seeking possession by way of an amendment on the ground of nuisance/annoyance in the present suit would also change the nature of original suit. In the circumstances this application for amendment is rejected. The application is disposed of. :4: :4: :4: (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)