1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1411 OF 2008 Dr.Anil Ambadas Bhosle .. Petitioner versus Rajkumar Bhausaheb Bhosle & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.A.L.Patki i/by Mr.S.K.Bhosale for the petitioner. Ms.Deepa Matwankar i/by Ujwal Agandsurve for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29th August 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the judgment and order dated 01st January 2008 by which application made by the petitioner - original plaintiff for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The case of the petitioner-plaintiff is that the suit property described in paragraph 1 was purchased by him from the father of the 1st respondent (original 1st defendant). It was contended that the suit property is a plot forming part of layout consisting of several plots which was prepared at the instance of the father of the 1st respondent. It is alleged that after demise of his father, the 1st respondent made an application to the 2nd respondent for sanction of a revised layout. The suit is filed on the basis of the apprehension that if 2 layout is revised, the 1st respondent will sell the plots as per the revised layout to third parties for the purposes of earning profit. Various amendments were sought to be incorporated in the plaint by the said application at Exhibit 58. Amendments referred to in paragraph Nos.3 and 5 were for correcting accidental errors in the plaint. By paragraph 4, the petitioner desired to amend the plaint for referring to a remark made in the revenue record by the Enquiry Officer to the effect that he had perused the NA Order as well as layout plan. The further amendment is for introducing paragraph 8A-1 for adding additional prayer clause. The last amendment sought is for adding prayer clause 8D to the effect that the petitioner be permitted to carryout amendment to the plaint form time to time. 2. The amendment is mainly objected to on the ground that the application for amendment was moved after commencement of recording of evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent pointed out what is held by the trial Court in paragraph 13 of the impugned order. The learned counsel submitted that the trial Court has rightly held that the suit is filed by a constituted attorney of the petitioner and unless evidence is adduced to show that the power of attorney is revoked, the application made by the petitioner himself for amendment could not be entertained. She also pointed out that evidence of the constituted attorney of the petitioner was recorded and an application made by him to take on record his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief is already rejected. She also pointed out that thereafter the petitioner applied for examining himself and 3 the said application was rejected. The apprehension expressed by her is that if the amendment is allowed, the petitioner or his constituted attorney may make an attempt to lead further evidence for circumventing earlier orders passed by the trial Court. 3. I have considered the submissions. The proposed amendments set out in paragraph Nos.3 and 5 of the application made by the petitioner is for correcting inadvertent errors. The amendment incorporated in paragraph No.4 of the application is for placing reliance on entries made in the revenue record and in particular, in Form No.8. These amendments are really of formal nature which ought to have been allowed. As far as addition of prayer clauses 8(A-1) is concerned, the same cannot be permitted as the prayer sought to be incorporated is of a temporary injunction and the hearing of the suit has already commenced. Permission to add prayer clause 8D could not have been granted as a blanket permission cannot be sought by the petitioner to amend the plaint from time to time. 4. Though the amendment to the aforesaid extent deserves to be allowed, it must be made very clear that on the basis of the amendment carried out, the petitioner will not be entitled to lead any further evidence. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : 4 (a) The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. (b) The petitioner is permitted to carry out amendment in terms of paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 of application at Exhibit 58. (c) The amendment shall be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date on which authenticated copy of this order is produced before the trial Court. (d) The trial Court will permit the respondents to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. (e) All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. (f) The petition is partly allowed on above terms. (A.S.OKA,J)