1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1369 OF 2009 M/s.Sathe Biscuits & Chocolate Co. Ltd ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the petitioner None for the respondents. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 24th August 2009 when the petition appeared on board, this court directed the Advocate for the petitioner to give notice to the 3rd respondent informing him that the petition will be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Accordingly, office noting shows that the private notice has been served. On the last date, an Advocate appeared for the respondent no.3. Today none appears for the respondent no.3. None appears for respondent nos.1 and 2. 2 The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by the trial court on 24th June 2008 by which an application made by the petitioner-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was rejected. 2 3 The petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for injunction. The suit property is described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. In the plaint it is asserted that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing survey nos.44 and 45 in village Dhanori, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. The disputed property is a vacant land admeasuring 1614 sq. meters between the said two survey numbers. The application for amendment of the plaint was made for contending that the petitioner obtained certain information under the Right to Information Act,2005 from the respondent no.3. The amendment is sought for incorporating the information received by the petitioner which allegedly shows that old Pune-Alandi Road which runs from Survey No.104-112 of village Yerwade to survey Nos.113-114 of village Kalas has been abandoned when the third respondent was not in existence. It is alleged that the said road was abandoned when the petitioner purchased the property. It is alleged that a new road was in existence when the petitioner constructed factory premises and the new road has been transferred to the State Government. It is sought to be contended that the old road was never transferred to the third respondent. The application for amendment has been rejected on the ground that what was sought to be contended by amendment was known to the petitioner even before the institution of the suit. 3 3 After having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the trial court has taken a completely erroneous view of the matter. The suit is filed in he year 2003. By the application at Exh.44, paragraph 5A was sought to be added on the basis of the information received under the Right to Information Act,2005. In any event, proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit and there was no impediment in allowing the amendment. It is settled law that while deciding the application for amendment, the court cannot go into the merits of the proposed amendment. Hence, the petition must succeed. 4 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and order is quashed and set aside. ii)The application at Exh.44 made by the petitioner is allowed. iii)It is obvious that after amendment is carried out, the defendants will be entitled to file additional statement. Petition is allowed in above terms. JUDGE