1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7908 OF 2008 Yashwant Ananta Kamble & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Krushnat Genu Ahire & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.I.M.Khairdi for the petitioners. Mr.G.M.Savagave for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 20th July 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned advocate for the petitioners. The 1st respondent has not been served. However, It is an admitted position that the 2nd respondent is the successor of the 1st respondent. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 2. The petitioners filed a suit for injunction. After the trial commenced, petitioners made an application for amendment of the plaint. The prayer was for correcting the description of the property which is incorporated in clause (A) of 2 paragraph no.1 of the plaint. In the said clause (A), City Survey No.3844C/1 has been incorporated having area of 25.7 Sq.mtrs. The amendment sought by the petitioners is that instead of City Survey No.3844C/1 admeasuring 25.7 Sq.mtrs, City Survey Nos.3844A and 3844B admeasuring 6504 Sq.mtrs shall be substituted. The said application has been rejected by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order by observing that the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit and it is open for the petitioner to file a separate suit. 2. The opposition to this petition by advocate for the 2nd respondent is that amendment was belatedly moved after recording of evidence commenced. The 2nd objection is that the description of one of the suit properties is sought to be completely changed which is not permissible. The third contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent is that the proposed amendment brings about a change in the nature of relief. 3 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. I have perused the plaint as well as application for amendment. The case made out in the application for amendment is that due to inadvertance, incorrect description of the property was mentioned in the plaint. The suit in the present case has been filed prior to coming into force of Amendment of the said Code of 1908 which was brought into force from 01st July 2002. It is well settled that amendment of the plaint has to be liberally allowed. The respondents- defendants can always file additional written statement and raise appropriate contentions including the contention regarding the bar of limitation. 4. In the present case, the amendment ought to have been allowed. The 2nd respondent could have been compensated by ordering payment of costs. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned judgment and order dated 08th September 2008 is quashed and set aside 4 and the application at Exhibit 163 in Regular Civil Suit No.523 of 2000 is allowed. (b) The petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd respondent. The amount of costs to be paid or deposited within a period of eight weeks from today with the trial Court. The payment/deposit of costs will be a condition precedent. (c) It is obvious that after amendment is carried out, the original defendants will be entitled to file written statement raising all permissible contentions. (d) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. (A.S.OKA,J)