jpc wp841-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 841 OF 2011 Sitaram Mahadu Kadam ... Petitioners Versus Ananta Krishna Pongade and others ... Respondents Ms. Leena Patil i/by M. S. Karnik, for the petitioner CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 29th November, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 15th December, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pali, Raigad by which order, the application for amendment of plaint came to be rejected. 2. The petitioner herein who is the original plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 29 of 2009 for cancellation of sale deed executed by the respondents and for permanent injunction against the respondents, not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the property on the basis of the possession receipt dated 28th September, 1995. The plaintiff moved the jpc wp841-11.sxw 2 instant application for amendment of the plaint so as to carry out substantial amendments in the plaint as also to incorporate a prayer for specific performance based on the said possession receipt dated 28th September, 1995. The trial court considered the said application for amendment and on the ground that if the amendments are permitted, it would change a the nature of the suit as also on the ground that the question of limitation would arise in so far as the prayer for specific performance is concerned, rejected the said application for amendment. In my view, considering the fact that the the suit which was initially filed for declaration, wherein the prayer for specific relief was thereafter sought to be introduced and which prayer for specific performance ex-facie seems to be barred by limitation, the order of the trial Court rejecting the said application cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is accordingly (R. M. SAVANT, J.)