[1] IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7126 OF 2007 IN REGULAR CIVIL SUIT NO.259 OF 2003 Maruti Tatoba Kamble @ Mahar, At Post Abdulla, Taluka Shirol, District: Kolhapur .... Petitioner - Versus - Bhaskar Tatoba Kamble @ Mahar, At Post Abdul Lat, Taluka Shirol, District: Kolhapur. .... Respondent Shri P.M. Arjunwadkar for the Petitioner. None present for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: DECEMBER 2, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. The petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 10-7-2007 whereby his application for amendment is rejected. The matter is pending for further trial. The petitioner realising the mistake in the description of the suit property in the plaint moved this application. 2. The Apex Court in Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 89 observed that incorrect description of suit property in plaint if not corrected at the earliest is likely to create complications at the [2] stage of execution of decree and even during trial. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the averments made and even otherwise for proper adjudication of the matter it is desirable that the description of the property must be clear. It is in the interest of both the parties and for the Court also to have a clear description of the property. Therefore, considering the same I see no reason not to allow this amendment application. 3. In the result, the amendment application is allowed and also the present petition. However, it is subject to costs of Rs.2000/-, to be paid within two weeks and is condition precedent. The rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wpj7126.7 sjs/D8wpj7126.7 sjs/D8wpj7126.7