1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6498 OF 2009 Market Missionaries (India) Pvt Ltd. .. Petitioner versus M/s.Omega Designs & Engineering Services & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for the petitioners. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25th January 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner filed a suit claiming declaration of tenancy in respect of suit premises. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st and 2nd respondents are the landlords and they have inducted the petitioner. 2. An application for amendment of the plaint was made for impleading 4th respondent as party defendant No.4. The said application was made on the ground that at the instance of 3rd respondent-bank (3rd defendant), the property has been sold to 4th respondent and that 3rd and 4th respondents have dispossessed the petitioner. By the amendment, the first prayer was sought to be made for impleading the 4th respondent as a party. The second part of the amendment was for incorporating a prayer for declaration that the purported sale of the suit property by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 4th respondents is 2 illegal, invalid and not binding on the petitioner and also for incorporating a prayer for mandatory injunction directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to restore possession. By the impugned order, the said application has been partly allowed. The learned trial Judge has permitted amendment so far as impleadment of 4th respondent is concerned. However, request made by the petitioner for incorporating a prayer for challenging the sale by the 3rd respondent has been turned down by the impugned order. 3. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner I find that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for amendment to the extent to which prayer clauses in paragraph III of the Schedule were sought to be incorporated in the plaint. The suit was filed in a Court exercising jurisdiction under section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and therefore the trial Court was right in holding that the said Court exercising a limited jurisdiction will not have jurisdiction to grant the relief which is sought to be added. It is obvious that remedy of the petitioner has been kept open. Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference. Writ petition is rejected. All contentions of the petitioner regarding sale effected by the 3rd respondent are kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)