1 dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5313 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Vikas Kolekar for the petitioner. Mr.S.G.Deshmukh for the respondents. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : 16.12.2008 P.C. The petitioner/plaintiff has moved amendment application after closing evidence of witness, to correct the description of the property to the extent of putting the word ‘North‘ instead of ‘south‘. According to him, otherwise, the description is mentioned other part of the plaint accordingly. The trial Court, after considering the aspect of delay also considered the merits of the matter and the fact that the parties have already led 2 the evidence, based upon the existing pleadings. If it is a case of mistake at only one place, then the court could have considered the same also. But it appears that it is not a mistake, but it changes the description of the property also. The evidence once led and that change so made will create further complication and delay in the proceeding. The Suit is for perpetual injunction praying for restraining the defendants from obstructing his possession in the suit property. The Court has specifically observed that the amendment is not necessary for deciding the real question in dispute. Therefore, in view of this, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order. The petition is dismissed. No costs. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]