1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3773 of 2008 M/s.Quality Rubber Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and others .. Respondents ... Mr.Y.S. Bhate i/b Shri S.K. Sthalekar for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Singh with Mr.A.D. Yadav i/b D.R.Yadav for respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 22nd August 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Anil Singh waives notice for the respondent nos.2 and 3. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal 2 forthwith by consent. 3. This writ petition under Article 227 takes exception to the judgement and order passed by the City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai dated 8th April 2008 in Chamber Summons no.1370 of 2006 in L.C. Suit no.3568 of 1998. The trial court has rejected the Chamber Summons taken out by the petitioner for amendment of plaint. The petitioner intended to incorporate certain details about the suit property described in paragraph no.1 of the plaint which reads thus: "The Plaintiff is in possession, use, occupation and enjoyment of a shop premises situated on the ground floor, Room No.1, of the building known as "Baptista Heiceinda" together with a godown on the rear side of the said premises situated at the address shown in the cause title of the Plaint. The Plaintiff is the tenant in respect of the said premises and the said godown under the tenancy agreement dated 17th October, 1988. The Plaintiff states that for the purposes of the present suit the said godown situated on the rear side of the said building admeasuring about 500 sq.ft. is hereinafter referred to as the suit premises. The Defendants are the body corporate constituted under the B.M.C. Act, 1888 having its office at the address shown in the cause title of the Plaint." 4. The petitioner by way of Chamber Summons 3 requested the court to permit him to amend paragraph no.1 of the plaint so as to incorporate following words after the words "hereinafter referred to as suit premises" appearing in paragraph no.1 of the plaint. The proposed amendment reads thus: "The plaintiff states that the Suit premises is situated partly on CTS No. 1085 and partly on CTS No.1085/1 and 1085/2 as more particularly shown on the Rough Sketch Plan which is annexed hereto and marked Exh.A 1 and on the CTS Plan which is annexed hereto and marked Exh.A 2." 5. The trial court has rejected this amendment on the reasoning that it would result in allowing the petitioner to introduce altogether new case or altogether different plea than the one originally canvassed. This is the principal reason weighed with the court below to reject the amendment. In my opinion, the said reason cannot be sustained. In fact, the purport of the amendment is only to give better particulars of the suit premises which are already described in paragraph no.1 of the plaint referred to above. The petitioner has not only mentioned the name of the building but also the location of the suit premises to be on the rear side of the said building. The petitioner has also referred to the tenancy agreement dated 17th October 4 1988 and more particularly the area of the suit premises in possession of the petitioner. All these facts mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the plaint gives complete description of the suit premises. However, to obviate any controversy or technical argument the petitioner has moved the proposed amendment which merely gives further details as to the CTS number on which the suit premises are situated. Thus, understood, the court below ought to have allowed the proposed amendment in the interest of justice as it is to give further or better particulars in respect of the suit premises. 6. Accordingly, impugned judgement and order is set aside. Instead the Chamber Summons is made absolute. The petitioner shall carry out necessary amendment within two weeks from today. It is made clear that permitting the petitioner to amend the pleading as per the proposed amendment does not mean that the petitioner has substantiated this stand in the plaint which he will have to prove at the trial. 7. All questions in that behalf are left open. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)