1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5445/2007 Purushottam s/o Shivramji Mehre vs. Smt. Yamunabai Pandurang Mehre and another. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE, J DATE : 3.7.2008 Heard Ms T.Udeshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.D.Chopde, learned counsel for respondents. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Akola in Regular Civil Suit No. 112/2005 by which the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in the above suit filed seeking mandatory injunction against the defendants to execute necessary document of title in his favour. By proposed amendment the plaintiff sought to amend the title of the suit as suit for specific performance of contract as well as sought to change the valuation of the suit. The trial Court rejected the same on the ground that it was filed at the fag end of the trial and as such could not be granted in terms of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court also held that the amendment would also change the nature of the suit. 4. Ms Udeshi submits that the trial court erred in law in 2` disallowing the amendment. She further submitted that the finding of the trial court that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit is patently unsustainable and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. Chopde, learned counsel for the respondents support the impugned order. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. In my considered opinion the trial court was right in dismissing the application by placing reliance to proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I find no illegality with the impugned order. It is not necessary for me to deal with the second submission made by Ms Udeshi that the finding of the trial that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit is unsustainable. I find that in terms of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. the application deserves to be dismissed. 7. I find no merit in the present petition. Hence, the petition is rejected. Judge patle 3`