1 WP-4958.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4958 OF 2011 Bandhkam Sahkari Mandal : Petitioner versus Shri Murlidhar Pandurang Bhoir : Respondent Mr. A A Garge with Mr. Jitendra Oak for the Petitioner. Mr. R M Bhandari for the Respondent. CORAM : R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 08th November 2011 P.C. 1 Leave to amend so as to correct the date from 14/3/2011 to 13/4/2011 as mentioned in the typed copy of the impugned order. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. At the out set the learned counsel for the Respondent placed certified copy of the order on record. 2 Rule, by consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 3 The above Petition takes exception to the order 13/4/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan by which order the Application-Exhibit-18 for amendment of the plaint in terms of the amendment proposed in the said application came to be rejected. 2 WP-4958.11.sxw 4 The above suit was moved for ad-interim relief on 29/3/2011 on which day the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan was pleased to grant ad-interim relief and notice issued to the Respondent was made returnable on 13/4/2011. It is prior to the returnable date i.e. 2/4/2011 that the application Exhibit-18 for amendment of the plaint in terms of the para 3 of the said application was moved. As indicated above, the said application was rejected on the ground that the said amendment would not serve any purpose and the said amendment could not be said to be a typing mistake. It is trite that at the stage of consideration of an application for amendment, the merits of the case in the amendment need not be gone into. In so far as amendment of pleadings is concerned, it is well settled that the Courts have to take liberal approach in so far as amendments of pleadings at the pro hearing stage are concerned, and an application for amendment has to be considered on the touch stone of the well settled legal principles. 5 In the instant case, as mentioned herein above, it is prior to the returnable date that the said amendment application Exhibit 18 was moved. In my view, therefore, the trial Court has grossly erred in rejecting the said application by the impugned order dated 13/4/2011. If the said application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent herein i.e. the Defendant to the said suit inasmuch as the Defendant would have an opportunity to deal with the said amended pleadings by filing appropriate 3 WP-4958.11.sxw written statement. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 13/4/2011 is quashed and set aside and the Application Exhibit 18 is allowed to the extent of the amendment sought in Para 3 of the said Application. The Plaintiff would be entitled to amend the plaint accordingly and the Defendant would be entitled to file his written statement dealing with the case of the Plaintiff in the amended plaint. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with the parties to bear the respective costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J]