1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3407 OF 2009 Sau.Pushpa D. Picha & Ors. ....Petitioners V/s. Phulabai L. Kale & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Rahul Mathur for the Petitioners. Mr.P.S. Dani for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. The Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed a suit on the apprehension of encroachment. 3. In an interlocutory proceeding, the trial Court directed the T.I.L.R. to survey the property. According to the Petitioners, the report of the T.I.L.R. establishes than an area of 2.40-R have been encroached upon by the Respondents. The Petitioners therefore filed an application for amendment based upon the report and on the apprehension that there is encroachment to the extent of 2.40-R. 4. The learned Judge rejected the application especially on merits. It is not necessary while considering the application for amendment to consider the merits of the rival contentions. That will be decided at the 2 hearing of the suit. 5. Mr.Dani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the proposed amendment incorporates the report of the T.I.L.R. as part of the plaint, which is not permissible. 6. In effect, the report of the T.I.L.R. is relied upon as the evidence of the Petitioners’ case. It indeed does not furnish a separate cause of action to the Petitioners. It is always open to the Respondents to challenge the contents of the report of the T.I.L.R. It does not establish the Petitioners’ case by itself. 7. With the above clarification, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned order is set-aside. The amendment is allowed. The amendment to be carried out within four weeks from today. Further the amendment is subject to the limitation. The Respondents’ contention on merits are kept open. There shall be no order as to costs.