1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1 OF 1996 WITH C. A. S. NOS. 868 OF 2009 & 401 OF 2010 Ramaji Gopala Bhoyar Vs. Shrawan Mahagya Ramndhye Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Order Shri A. R. Rishi Adv for appellant. Shri S. S. Ghate Adv for respondents. CORAM:_ C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 28 th APRIL, 2010. . Heard counsel for the appellant and the respondents. This application has been filed for amendment of the plaint. Plaintiff/appellant had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract against one Shrawan and daughters of one Mahagya. It was alleged by the plaintiff that Shrawan and his father Mahagya had entered into a contract of sale of the suit property with the plaintiff. Before a sale deed could be executed Mahagya died. Plaintiff instituted a suit against Shrawan, one of the 2 executant of the agreement and the daughters of said Mahagya namely Janabai & Naktabai. In the said suit it was however alleged that Janabai and Naktabai were added as party as above though infact they were not necessary party, as Mahagya had already decided to transfer the suit property in favour of Shrawan. The suit was resisted. In the said suit the defendants had not only resisted the suit but had filed counter claim for possession. Trial Court decreed the suit and dismissed the counter claim. Against that defendants preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was allowed and the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. This second appeal is therefore preferred by the original plaintiff. The plaintiff now seeks an amendment to the plaint contending that allegations as made in the plaint are not correct. Defendants 2 and 3 being daughters of Mahagya have an interest in the said property and decree should also have been claimed against them but through inadvertentce or wrong advise by the lawyer the decree was only claimed against defendant no.1 Shrawan. Application for amendment is opposed by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff wants to plead a new case altogether and wants to fill up the lacuna. 3 After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents, I find that the amendment ought to be allowed because in any case the plaintiff has added Janabai and Naktabai as party to the suit. It is well settled law that litigant should not suffer for the fault on the part of the lawyer. In the circumstances, I find that application for amendment needs to be allowed. The application is allowed. The said amendment be carried out. C. A. S. NO. 401/10: Not pressed. Dismissed as not pressed. JUDGE svk 4 5 6