1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 680/2009 (Laxman Mahadeo Wani VERSUS Vivek Balwantrao Deshmukh & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri D.R. Bhoyar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.M. Kitey, counsel for the respondent no.1. Shri D.B. Patel, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-2 & 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 17, 2009. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Wardha on 27.01.2009 allowing the amendment application filed by the respondent no.1. The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 for declaration of his ownership over the suit property and also for the grant of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit when the matter was at the fag end of the trial, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the plaint. 2 By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff tried to plead that the plaintiff had lost the possession of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff also desired to seek the relief of possession by incorporating a prayer clause in the plaint to that effect. The application filed by the plaintiff was strongly opposed by the defendant. It was stated by the defendant in the reply that the amendment application was belatedly filed at the fag end of the trial and granting permission to amend the pleadings would cause serious prejudice to the defendant. It was the case of the defendant/ petitioner that the amendment changed the nature of the suit. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent had not stated in the proposed amendment as to when he had lost the possession of the property. 3 I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the impugned order dated 27.01.2009. It appears from a reading of the amendment application that the respondent merely desires to seek the possession of the suit property from the defendant as it is the case of the respondent that he has lost the possession over the suit property during the pendency of the suit. By the proposed amendment in paragraph 8-A, it is sought to be pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant/petitioner is in illegal possession of the premises. The apprehension of the petitioner as is so expressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment to the plaint is sought by the respondent merely with a view to protract the proceedings is not well founded as by the proposed amendment, the respondent merely seeks to incorporate a prayer for possession of the suit property. 4 No fault can be found with the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Wardha on 27.01.2009 allowing the amendment application. In any case, the respondent will not be permitted to tender the evidence on any other fact except the facts, which are mentioned in the proposed amendment, in case, the plaintiff desires to lead evidence on the same. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE