: 1 : 1594-09-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1594 OF 2011 Smt. Kalpana Krishnaji Kore & Anr. .. Petitioners v/s. Purushottam Baburao Kore & Anr. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Aumkar Joshi i/b C.S. Joshi for the petitioners Mr. Samir A. Vaidya for respondent nos. 1 to 5 ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 5th OCTOBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Heard learned advocates on both sides. The petitioners filed R.C. Suit No.19 of 2009 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahanu, Dist. Thane (hereinafter referred to as learned trial Judge). According to the petitioners plaintiffs after filing of the suit, there was change in the circumstances namely the respondents in high handed manner dispossessed the petitioners and not only that they started carrying out construction on the land in question. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application below Exh.34 in R.C. Suit No.19 of 2009 for amendment of : 2 : 1594-09-wp=.sxw the plaint so as to incorporate necessary averments and prayers to get back the possession of the land in question, demolish the construction and seek an order of injunction restraining respondents from carrying out construction. That application for amendment was rejected by the learned trial Judge by order dated 23rd August, 2010. This order dated 23rd August, 2010 is challenged in this petition. 2. I have heard learned advocates on both sides. A perusal of the original plaint as well as the text of the amended application, if read, would clearly go to show that the suit filed initially so as to seek order of injunction will get converted into a suit for possession if application for amendment is granted. Such a course is not permissible and to that extent, learned trial Judge has considered the application for amendment and has rightly rejected the said application. In my view, no interference is required in the impugned order and, therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioners had relied upon the judgment in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. K.K. Modi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 385. I have perused the said judgment. No doubt, the : 3 : 1594-09-wp=.sxw developments, which the petitioner wishes to place on record as the subsequent developments, however on account of the amendment of the plaint, the petitioners now wishes to convert the suit for injunction simplicitor into a suit for possession. This mode adopted by the petitioners has the effect of changing the nature of the suit and, therefore, the amendment has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge. 4. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)