:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1012 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1012 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1012 OF 2008 Bhaskar Daulat Hire & Ors. ..Petitioners V/s Vasantrao Laxmanrao Magar & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.M.M.Sathye for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Shinde for the respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 17TH JUNE, 2008 : 17TH JUNE, 2008 : 17TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10-1-2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge,J.D., Dindori, whereby the application of the respondent-Orig. plaintiff for amendment is allowed. 2. The learned Trial Judge has allowed the application on the basis that the amendment is concerning the same agreement for sale dated 18-2-1997, which is the subject matter of the suit and therefore, he has permitted the amendment for seeking specific performance of the said agreement for sale dated 18-2-1997, when this prayer did not find place in the original plaint. The other amendment sought and allowed by the Trial Court is :2: for a declaration that the sale deed dated 18-03-2006, executed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the defendant No. 5 be declared to be illegal. There were other amendments also sought, which were trivial in nature. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Trial Court did not consider that in the written statement there was a specific averment regarding the said sale deed between the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5. However, no prayer for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 18-2-1997 was sought in the earlier amendment. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire nature of the suit would change, if the amendment is permitted by the impugned order of the Trial Court. He further submitted that the respondents have not obtained leave under order 2 rule 2 CPC and in absence of said leave the Court ought not to have granted the amendment. He submitted that under order 2 rule 2 it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to include the whole claim and unless leave under order 2 rule 2 is :3: obtained, the said amendment could not have been granted. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand, has submitted that by allowing the amendment, multiplicity of the suits would be avoided and that the nature of the suit would not be changed by the amendment in as much as the amendment also pertains to the same agreement for sale. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. In my view, in order to meet the ends of justice it would be appropriate that the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to file an application before the Trial Court under order 2 rule 2 for obtaining leave of the Court to incorporate that part of the claim which is sought by way of amendment in the amendment application and in particular relating to the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale deed dated 18-2-1997 and declaration that the sale deed executed between the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the defendant No.5 dated 18-3-2006 is illegal. :4: 6. The impugned order is thus set aside and liberty is granted to the respondent to file the application as aforestated. Let the application be filed within three weeks before the Trial Court. 7. It is made clear that the application for leave under order 2 rule 2 will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the earlier orders or the observations in this order. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty as mentioned aforesaid. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)