1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1765 OF 2008 Sayanna S/o Gangaram Battin } Age : 68 Years, Occ. : Pensioner, } R/o :Gaulipura, Nanded. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Purushottam S/o Jethamalji } Maheshwani, Age : 62 Years, } R/o : C/o Maheshwari Plastic } Industries, Shivamji Nagar, } College Road, Nanded. } 2. Dr. Shankar S/o Vishvanath } Hurne, Age : 64 Years, } Occ. : Medical Practice, } R/o : Vishwanath building, } Visava Nagar, Naded. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.S.Nirkhee, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Hurshal Joshi holding for Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for Respondent no. 1. [ CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. ] DATE : 31/08/2009 2 JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order below Exh. 17 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004 passed by the Adhoc District Judge – 1, Nanded on 22/11/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under. The petitioner herein filed Suit for recovery of Rs. 74,058/- from the respondents. The said Suit was contested by the parties and on 17/7/2003, the Suit was dismissed. 3. Being aggrieved, the present petitioner preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004 on 10/9/2003. In said Appeal, the petitioner filed application for amendment of the plaint below Exh. 17. The learned District Judge rejected the said application below Exh. 17. Hence, this Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the interest of justice, the application of the petitioner should have been allowed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the grounds taken in the Writ Petition in paragraph no. 8 ground nos. (i) to (vii). Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that this Writ Petition may be entertained by setting aside the impugned order. 3 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the application for amendment is filed in Appeal and the Appellate Court has rightly observed that if the application is allowed, the entire nature of the Suit will be changed and it will cause prejudice to the other side. The learned counsel supported and relied on the findings and reasons recorded by the District Judge and submitted that this Court may not entertain the Writ Petition. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and the respondent and after perusal of the findings recorded by the Court below, I am of the considered view that the application which was filed by the present petitioner, that too, at belated stage, has been rightly rejected. The Ad-hoc District Judge, Nanded has observed in his Order that the plaintiff, “ By saying that his wife Mrs. Sayanna was owner of the Maruti Van, met with the accident, the plaintiff intends to change parties to the suit and appeal. It means the original suit was brought by a wrong person who had no right at all. Plaintiff is at liberty to bring a suit by impleading the proper parties. The whole nature of the Suit will be changed if the plaintiff replaces him by his wife in the plaint as proposed in para 10-A ”. 7. Bare perusal of the relevant observations by the Ad-hoc 4 District Judge mentioned herein above, would show that whole nature of the Suit will be changed. 8. On perusal of the above observations in impugned Order, it appears that the Court below has taken a possible view, no interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to produce copy of the Judgment delivered in Claim Avedan Sankhya : 331/2001 (51/92) before the appellate court. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE knp/WP1765.08