*1* 32.wp.1996.10 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1996 OF 2010 Poona Urban Properties Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner -Versus- The Maharashtra State Electricity Board ..Respondent .......... Mr.V.B.Tapkir for the Petitioner. Mr.Ashish Kamat with Mr.Chirag Mody i/by DSK Legal for Respondent. .......... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th June 2010 passed by the learned 7th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune vide which an application filed by the present petitioner for amendment of the plaint came to be rejected. 2 The plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit being Civil Suit No.154 of 2001 challenging the bill raised by the respondent-defendant dated 13th February 2001 for an amount of Rs.1,03,382.93. It is the contention of the petitioner that without consent of the petitioner, the meter was changed by the respondent. It is submitted that as per the old meter, the petitioner was *2* 32.wp.1996.10 required to pay Rs.7,000/- or so per month. However, suddenly after the change in the meter, the bills were increased to Rs.36,000/- or so. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure also came to be filed. The same was allowed vide order dated 28th August 2001 vide which the learned trial Judge granted the order of injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from disconnecting the petitioner’s electric supply on the condition that the petitioner would pay monthly average bill of Rs.7,000/-. It appears that there was an appeal before this Court challenging the said order. Initially, the interim relief was granted in favour of the respondent. However, subsequently, the appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 3 After a period of almost nine years, an application for amendment came to be filed by the petitioner challenging all the bills raised by the respondent from 2001 to 2009 and therefore, the said application was rejected. Hence the present petition. 4 Mr.Tapkir The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the amendment which is sought to be incorporated pertains to subsequent developments, the same is required to be allowed. He submits that by rejecting the said application, the trial Court has not exercised its jurisdiction in the correct manner. He placed reliance on the *3* 32.wp.1996.10 judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ragu Thilak D. John Vs.S.Rayappan & Ors reported in (2001) 2 SCC 472” and the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of “Hari Shankar Singhania & Ors. Vs. Dr.Gaur Hari Singhania & Ors. reported in 2003(1) All.M.R. 548” and in the case of “Krishnaji Shankar Moghe Vs. Sitaram Gangadhar Shende reported in 2002(4) All.M.R. 393” and in the case of “Maganlal Harilal Doshi & Ors. Vs. Sarvadaman Mansukhal Doshi & Ors. reported in 2002(4) All.M.R. 403” 5 Mr.Ashish Kamat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the contrary submits that the amendment application itself was not bonafide. It is further submitted that the petitioner is running a hotel consisting of in all 32 rooms, a part of which is air-conditioned in the city of Pune. It is submitted that on account of interim orders, the petitioner is enjoying electrical facility only by paying a meagre amount of Rs.7,000/-. In any case, it is submitted that since the learned trial Judge has exercised its discretion by refusing the amendment, this Court should not interfere in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 No doubt that since the suit in question is prior to 2002 i.e. amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure Code, the suit would not be governed by the amended provisions of order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil *4* 32.wp.1996.10 Procedure Code. However, at the same time the conduct of the petitioner/plaintiff has also have to be taken into consideration. That though the suit is filed in 2001 challenging only one bill, no steps have been taken for a long period of nine years and only at the fag end of the suit, in the present application for amendment has been filed. The petitioner is enjoying the facility of electricity by paying an amount of Rs. 7,000/-, as against the bills which are within the range of Rs.30,000/- to 70,000/-. In any case, the learned trial Judge has itself, observed that the basic grievance of the said petitioner/plaintiff is regarding the fault in the meter. The learned trial Judge itself has observed that in case, the case of the plaintiff that the meter is faulty, is found to be of substance, the subsequent bills would also become illegal. 7 In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction exercised by the learned trial Court is exercised in a perverse manner to warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8 The petition is, therefore, rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ]