1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.1600 of 2008 Shankarlal Sundarlal Gupta Petitioner Vs. Asif Khudadad Qazi Respondent Mr.R.S.Datar for petitioner. Mr.M.R.Deshpande for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 7, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Datar, the learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff who has filed Special Civil Suit No.231 of 1999. The substantial relief by way of recovery of money in the said Suit reads as under: "The Defendant be ordered and decreed to pay the compensation and damages to the tune of Rs.14,24,500/- to the Plaintiff in connection with the Development Agreement dated 19.4.1991." . In addition the plaintiff has also prayed for permanent injunction from entering into the suit plot bearing City Survey No.434(P), Agra Road, Bhiwandi. 2 . During the trial of the suit the plaintiff had filed his affidavit at Exhibit 25 in lieu of examination-in-chief and he was under cross-examination. During the course of cross-examination of the plaintiff, the defendant made an application to bring on record a copy of the agreement dated 19/4/1991 which was filed in the earlier proceedings in Special Civil Suit No.517 of 1991 by the plaintiff himself only and in the cross-examiantion it was brought out that the consideration mentioned in the said agreement was Rs.1,60,000/- only and not Rs.9,25,000/-. The trial Court allowed the said application at Exhibit 70 and also noted that in the Written Statement the defendant had specifically objected to the agreement dated 19/4/1991. The plaintiff had also placed on record a copy of the order passed below Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No.517 of 1991 and the plaintiff himself had given reference to the filing of the said suit. At this stage the plaintiff filed an application at Exhibit 81 under Order VI,Rule 17 of CPC for amendment and by the impugned order dated 8/1/2008, the application has been partly allowed in respect of para 2 and 17 of the plaint. 3 . Mr.Datar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff should be allowed to challenge the validity of the agreement dated 19/4/1991 as the same could also be a fabricated document. These submissions do not have any force in law. The copy submitted by the plaintiff of the very same agreement in Special Civil Suit No.517 of 1991 has already been called by the trial Court and it is on record. No matter what copy is submitted by the defendant, but the consideration amount whatever is incorporated in the original agreement brought on record by the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.517 of 1991 cannot be now disputed. The trial Court is, therefore, right in observing that the plaintiff was trying to change the nature of pleadings and consequently the relief by seeking to amend the plaint so as to question the validity of the agreement dated 19/4/1991. The amendments sought in paras 2 and 17 were formal amendments and they were connected with the original proceedings and, therefore, they were allowed. The remaining amendments have been turned down and rightly so. . Hence there is no case made out to cause 4 interference in the impugned order in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is rejected summarily. (B.H.MARL