1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1061 OF 2010 Sanjay Shankar Patil, age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Mohida, Tq. Shahada, District Nandurbar. .. PETITIONER VERSUS Onkar Narayan Patil, age: 63 years, Occ: Pensioner and Agriculture, R/o Shahada, Tq.Shahada, District Nandurbar. .. RESPONDENT Mr.J.R.Shah, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mukul S. Kulkarni, advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 24 th AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1 An application tendered by Respondent seeking amendment to the plaint came to be allowed by the trial Court in view of the order passed on 12.11.2009 and said interlocutory order is subjected to challenge in this petition by the petitioner – original defendant. 2 It is contended by the petitioner that the proposed 2 amendment is likely to change the nature of the suit, so also the cause of action, which was originally shown, is also likely to undergo a change and as such, it was impermissible for the trial Court to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint. 3 I have perused the application as well as impugned order passed by the trial Court. It transpires that the plaintiff has approached the trial Court contending that during continuance of the proceedings before the trial Court, he has been dispossessed from the suit property. It is the case of original plaintiff that after rejection of an application seeking temporary injunction, he has been dispossessed by the defendant, which gives him cause for seeking possession of suit property. The plaintiff can very well bring to the notice of the Court the developments occurred during continuance of the proceedings and may seek appropriate relief. On perusal of the application, it cannot be said that the proposed amendment is likely to change nature of the suit. In these circumstances, it is appropriate for the plaintiff to claim relief of possession of the suit property as he claims to have been dispossessed from the suit premises during continuance of the suit. I do not find that the trial Court has committed any error in allowing the application seeking amendment to the plaint. The defendants are entitled 3 to raise all the permissible defences and resist the suit. It is needless to mention that defendants shall have liberty to file amended written statement. 4 In exercise of extraordinary powers conferred upon this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, no interference is called for. Petition is devoid of substance. 5 Writ Petition stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE adb/wp106110