dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7607 OF 2007 PETITION NO.7607 OF 2007 PETITION NO.7607 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.Pankaj J. Das for the Petitioner. Mr.K.J.Preswala i/b.M/s.Mulla & Mulla and C.B.C. for respondents 1 and 2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 3rd October, 2008. : 3rd October, 2008. : 3rd October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 10.08.2007 whereby the plaintiff’s application for amendment was rejected. The petitioner/plaintiff’s suit is for injunction against the defendants as they proposed to demolish the alleged unauthorised construction. The suit is of the year 1998. The petitioner/plaintiff as alleged are in possession of the property as they claimed to be purchased from one M/s.Ameya Builders some time in the year ( 2 ) 1998. Admittedly, there are no notices issued by the defendants to the plaintiff/petitioner. However, based upon the apprehension, the petitioner has filed the present suit for injunction. By this amendment, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the notices issued in the year 1998 by the defendants/respondents to M/s.Ameya Builders, who is admittedly not a party to the present suit. There is a Suit bearing No.506/1995 which is pending between M/s.Ameya Builders and respondents/defendants herein. The present suit is ready for hearing. Considering the nature of suit and the issue involved, I am also of the view that there is no case made out by the petitioner to interfere with the said order passed by the learned trial court rejecting the amendment application basically in view of ( 3 ) undisputed position on record that there were no notices issued by the respondents/defendants to the petitioner. Therefore, in view of this, amendment sought by the plaintiff is not at all necessary to decide the real controversy between the plaintiff and the defendants. Taking all this into account, there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned order of rejecting the application in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petition is accordingly dismissed. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]