(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 545 OF 2011 Govind s/o. Nagnath Jogi, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Pensioner, R/o. Aanantwadi, Taluka : Deoni, .. Petitioners District : Latur, (Original defendant and 2 others. nos.1, 2 and 3) versus Taterao Bhaurao Bhandare, .. Respondents Age : 55 years, (No.1 - Original Occupation : Service & Agriculture, plaintiff R/o. Walandi, Taluka : Udgir, & District : Latur, No.2 - Original and another. defendant no.4) ....................... Mr. Milind Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24TH JANUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. In a suit instituted in the year 1997, for removal of encroachment on the area admeasuring 1 Hectare 19 Are, after his evidence is over, the respondent / plaintiff moved application for amendment and restricted the relief in relation to encroached portion i.e. 35 Are and 9 Are only. According to him, this is in consonance with the survey on record. The trial court has permitted him to amend his suit accordingly. 2. Mr. Milind Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that such amendment after 14 years, prejudices defence of the petitioners / defendants. He further points out that the defendant no.4 has been proceeded ex parte and as per provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applicable to the State of Maharashtra, before allowing amendment notice to the defendants was essential and in any case, after amendment, a fresh notice with amended copy of plaint ought to have been served upon defendants. He states that as on today, in the absence of any such notice to defendant no.4, there are two plaints on record, one for removal of encroachment on the area admeasuring 1 Hectare 19 Are, and the other removal of encroachment on the area admeasuring 35 Are and 9 Are, as amended. (3) 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners, I find that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners / defendants in any way. The nature of suit remains the same. The defence / defences already raised are also not affected in any way. The arguments raised are not, in any way, defeated because of amendment allowed. 4. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter in the present jurisdiction. The questions raised by the petitioners are kept open to be raised by the petitioners before the trial court at appropriate stage. With that liberty, the present petition is disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp545