jpc 1 wp5845-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5845 OF 2011 Vishnu Namdeo Bhoir ... Petitioner Versus ... Respondents Shrikant Moreshwar Karve and others Mr. R. R. Salvi, for the petitioner Ms. Vijaya K. Raman for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 Mr. R. V. Govilkar for Respondent no.7 CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 20th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 10th June, 2010 passed by the learned learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Divsiion, Panvel, by which order, the application for amendment of the plaint came to be rejected. 2. In the context of the present petition, it would be relevant to note that one of the prayers in the suit being Spl. Civil Suit No. 228 of 2010 is to set aside the Sale Deed dated 4th November, 2006. The suit has been filed in the year 2010 and therefore the defendants i.e. respondents herein filed an application under Section 9-A raising the issue of limitation as, according to them, the suit filed for challenging the sale deed dated 4th November, 2006 is time barred. The said jpc 2 wp5845-11.sxw application has been allowed by the learned trial Court and the issue of limitation has been framed and the parties have been directed to lead evidence in that behalf. It is on the date when the hearing as to the said preliminary issue was to take place that the instant application for amendment of the plaint came to be filed. 3. The sum and substance of the said amendment is to the effect that in the year 2008 one Khandare has given the plaintiff a copy of the said sale deed dated 4th November, 2006 and therefore the plaintiff wanted to incorporate the averments in that behalf in the plaint after paragraph 12. The application was opposed on behalf of the defendants i.e. the respondents herein, the trial Court has, by the impugned order rejected the said application. The rejection is inter alia on three grounds, the first ground is that what is sought to be incorporated by way of amendment is in the nature of evidence and not material facts which are required to be pleaded. The second ground is that since the issue of limitation has been framed on the basis of the defence taken by the defendants, allowing of the amendment as prayed by the instant application would result in the defence of the defendants being prejudicially affected. The third ground is that the plaintiffs would be entitled to lead evidence in respect of the subject matter of the amendment application. jpc 3 wp5845-11.sxw 4. Having considered the nature of the amendments and taking into consideration the nature of the suit as filed and keeping in mind the preliminary issue framed by the trial Court, in my view no exception could be taken to the reasoning of the trial Court in rejecting the said application for amendment of the plaint. In my view therefore no case for interdiction at the hands of this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated (R. M. SAVANT, J.)