1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1443 OF 2010 Pandurang Maruti Koli ...Petitioner vs. Gopala Maruti Gurav & Others ...Respondents Mr.M.S.Lagu for the petitioner Mr.Aditya N.Sabittal h/f Mr.K.S.Patil for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 2, 2010 P.C. 1 The petitioner is the 2nd plaintiff. A suit was filed for perpetual injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. An appeal was preferred by original 1st defendant before the District Court. The Appeal was decided by a Judgment and Order dated 27th April 2007. While deciding the Appeal, the learned Principal District Judge came to the conclusion that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the description of the suit premises was vague. However, he proceeded to pass an order of remand to enable the plaintiffs to carry out amendment to the plaint for properly describing the suit property with a view to remove the vagueness. On the basis of the order of remand, an application for amendment of the plaint was made by the petitioner. The amendment was sought for correcting the description of the suit property. The said amendment was allowed. Thereafter, an application was made for amendment of the plaint for incorporating the relief of declaration of ownership. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the issues framed by the trial Court and the 2 findings recorded by the trial Court. He pointed out that the issue relating to title was framed by the trial Court and the same has been decided. He submitted that due to inadvertence, a specific prayer for declaration of ownership was not incorporated in the plaint. He submitted that if the prayer for declaration is permitted to be incorporated, there will be no prejudice to the respondents as the issue as regards the title of the plaintiffs has been already framed by the trial Court. He placed a reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pankaja And another vs. Yellappa (dead) by Lrs. And others [(2004 6 SCC 415)]. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The suit has been filed by the petitioner on 19th January 1984. The suit was decreed on 5th December 1991. An Appeal preferred by the original 1st defendant. The learned Principal District Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was liable to be dismissed as the description of the suit property in the plaint as well in the prayer was very vague. However, by way of indulgence, he passed an order of remand and permitted the plaintiffs to carry out amendment for giving proper description of the suit property. Clause 3 of the operative part of the Judgment and Order dated 27th April 2007 reads thus : 3 Suit is remanded to the trial Court. If the plaintiff moves an application to carry out an amendment in description of the suit property and a prayer clause with a view to remove the vagueness within two months, permission is granted to carry out the amendment. Failing which suit deserves to be dismissed. If the amendment is carried out suit 3 to proceed according to law. Parties in that case are at liberty to lead fresh evidence if they so desire. 4 In terms of the liberty granted by the District Court, the plaint was amended for incorporating the description of the suit property. Thereafter, another application for amendment was made by the petitioner on 19th January 2009 for incorporating a prayer for declaration. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. In the suit filed by the petitioner in the year 1984, in the year 2007, a limited order of remand was passed by the District Court to enable the plaintiff-petitioner to carry out amendment to the plaint as well as to the prayer clause for properly describing the suit property. After the order of remand, an amendment was accordingly carried out. Now, by filing the application at Exh.151, the petitioner wants to claim additional relief of declaration of ownership which was not claimed in the suit. The suit is of the year 1984. The order of remand passed by the District Court was only to enable the petitioner to correct the description of the suit property. There is no challenge by the petitioner to the order of remand. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer for incorporating the additional relief in the plaint. The issue of title has been already framed and on the basis of order of remand, the trial Court is bound to decide the said issue as the prayer in the suit is based on title. 5 Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out in writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is rejected. JUDGE