1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6013 OF 2010 (VIJAY DIGAMBAR FALKE & ANOTHER..VS..STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. B.N.Jaipurkar, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 03, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha on 25.10.2010 allowing the application filed by the respondent/ plaintiff for addition of a party and for amendment of the plaint. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the original pleadings as also the proposed amendment, it appears that the trial Court has rightly allowed the amendment application filed by the petitioner subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-. On a perusal of the application it appears that the plaintiff wanted to make some minor amendment in the plaint pleadings, as inadvertently some mistakes were committed while preparing the plaint. The proposed amendment did not change the nature of the suit and in fact it was necessary for effectively and completely deciding the controversy between the parties. The plaintiff had sought a declaration that he had equal share and interest in the suit property and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained from disbursing the compensation amount to defendants No. 3 and 6 permanently by the proposed amendment. The plaintiff merely sought a direction to the 2 defendants No.1 and 2 to pay the compensation to the plaintiff as per the share of the plaintiff in the suit property. Certain other typographical mistakes were also sought to be corrected by the proposed amendment. Since the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the suit and was necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties the trial Court rightly allowed the amendment application. The trial Court was also justified in allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for joining of the partnership firm as party No.10 as the said joinder was sought merely with a view to overcome any technical difficulty which may have cropped up at the further stage of the proceedings. The proposed party, which was sought to be added as defendant No.10, was a necessary party, specially when the other partners of the firm were already arrayed as parties to the suit. In such circumstances, the trial Court rightly observed that it was necessary to permit the plaintiff to join the partnership firm as a party to the suit in order to avoid technicalities and to help the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate the dispute involved in the suit. Since the orders passed by the trial Court appear to be just and proper, they call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..