1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8025 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 8025 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 8025 OF 2006 Shri Devgonda Nemgonda Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners (Orig.Plaintiffs) Versus Shri Mahadeo Kally parit (Banne) & Ors. Respondents (Org.Defendants) Mr. N.J.Patil, Advocate, for the peitioners. Mr. Gajanan m. Savagave, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1,2,4, 5 & 6. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE: 5th December,2008. DATE: 5th December,2008. DATE: 5th December,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The present petition is filed by the original plaintiffs. They had filed Regular Civil Suit No.194 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2 Jaysingpur, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property shown to be part of City Survey No.594 which was originally bearing Survey No.83/C/7. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property which belongs to them. After hearing the parties, the suit was dismissed on 31.8.2001. After that, the plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.454 of 2001 which was later given fresh number 103/2004 after its transfer to the District Court at Jaysingpur. On 22.2.2006, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. before the appellate Court for making amendment to the plaint giving description of the property and giving old survey numbers with direction etc. as well as he sought permission to produce certain documents in respect of the said survey numbers. The application came to be rejected by the appellate Court. Hence, the plaintiffs have preferred the present petition. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 3. The learned appellate Court noted that the amendment ralates back to 1968 when the properties were consolidated and this fact was known to the plaintiffs. The documents which were sought to be produced in support 3 of the proposed amendment indicated that the certified copies were taken in the year 1996 before filing the suit. Inspite of that, no reference was made to the documents nor the proper description of the property was given in the suit. The learned appellate Court also noted that the two earlier suits was filed,one in the year 1989 and another in 1995, the reference of which was made by the defendants in the written statement. Inspite of that, the plaintiffs did not feel it necessary to make the amendment in the plaint before the trial Court nor he produced those documents. It is material to note that the application for amendment and production of documents was filed almost 5 years after dismissal of the suit and even after filing the appeal. There is no explanation from the plaintiffs about delay in making the application. In fact, in view of the documents in their possession if the plaintiffs felt it necessary, they could have made amendment when the suit was pending before the trial Court. If after dismissal of the suit, they felt that this amendment was necessary and production of documents was also required, such an application could have been moved before the appellate Court at the earliest stage after filing the appeal, but as the record reveals, the plaintiffs kept silent for about 5 years. If at this stage, their application is allowed, the amendment in the plaint will have to be made 4 and in all probabilities the plaintiffs may request for remand of the suit to the trial Court taking the matter to square one after so many years. The property involved is just 2 Ares situated in a village. Cost of litigation which the defendants will have to meet because of the amendment will be exhorbitant and possibly more than the value of the property. 4. Taking into consideration, I find that it will not be in the interest of justice to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court. Therefore, the Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)