1 wp2403.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2403 OF 2011 Satwaji s/o Begaji Dhone, Age : 77 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Himayatnagar, Tq. Himayatnagar, District Nanded. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Shivaji s/o Pottanna Gaddamwar, Age: 33 dyears, Occ: Agri., R/o. Hanuman Galli, Himayatnagar, Tq. Himayatnagar, Dist. Nanded & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. V.P. Kadam, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.C. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. V.H. Chenalwad, Advocate for Resp. No. 1. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P.for Resp. Nos. 2 & 3. Respondent No.4 served. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the application for amendment of the plaint has been allowed by the trial Court 2 wp2403.11 and as a result, there is a change in the nature of the suit. The fact that the property sold was within the knowledge of the plaintiff in respect of which the amendment has been carried out and allowed was sold in the year 2006. The suit was filed in the year 2008 and therefore, it was possible for the plaintiff to aver in the plaint itself about the sale of such property in the year 2006. However, application for amendment of the plaint was filed in the year 2010. The trial was commenced, therefore, according to the Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 2. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, sale of the property in the year 2006 by the petitioner to one Prakash Nagorao Chalpilwar was not within the knowledge of the respondents at the time of filing the suit. However, in the year 2010 the respondents came to know about the sale of such property by the petitioner to one Mr. 3 wp2403.11 Prakash. Therefore, the application was filed for amendment of the plaint and also for adding said Prakash as party respondent to the suit. When the application was filed, at that time, trial was not commenced and therefore, the trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondents on imposing costs of Rs.1000/- on respondent No.1. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order. 3. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it clearly emerges that, the trial Court taking into consideration the fact that the sale or the transfer of the property by the petitioner in favour of one Prakash was not within the knowledge of the respondents at the time of filing the suit, allowed the application filed by the respondents thereby holding that the said amendment will not change the nature of the suit. 4. On independent scrutiny, I find that 4 wp2403.11 allowing such amendment application and allowing to add said purchaser as party respondent to the suit would certainly not change the nature of the suit and to put end to the controversy in the suit, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application for amendment on imposing costs of Rs.1000/- on the respondent No.1. 5. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Writ Petition is rejected. Interim relief stands vacated. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/NOV11