1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1640/2009 (Haji Yusuf Khan Haji Lal Khan through L.Rs. & ors. Vs. M/s Al-basheer Restaurant & ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. J.J. Chandurkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shilpa Tapadia h/f Mr. V.M.Deshpande, Advocat, for R- 1 to 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 10 , 2009 . By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati, on 19th June, 2008, rejecting an amendment application filed by the petitioners, as also the order dated 23rd of October, 2008 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge I, Amravati, rejecting the miscellaneous civil appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19th June, 2008. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing both the orders as also the application for amendment, it is clear that the Courts committed no error in holding that the amendment application could not have been granted. Both the Courts rightly held that the proposed amendment changes the nature of the proceedings. The petitioners had earlier denied the title of the landlord and hence, it was rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents that a right was accrued in favour of the landlords to determine 2 the tenancy of the petitioners under the provisions of Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act and hence, by deleting the said denial, the petitioners could not have amended the written statement by admitting the relationship between the landlord and themselves. The Courts also rightly held that the reason stated by the petitioners for filing the amendment application was also liable to be rejected as an amendment application cannot be allowed for the reason that there was a change in the counsel and the newly engaged counsel had explained to the party that the written statement was not properly filed or in accordance with the instructions of the party. The amendment was not only belatedly filed after the examination of a witness, but there was also no sufficient cause for belatedly filing the same. The proposed amendment not only changes the nature of the proceedings, but if granted, could have definitely caused serious prejudice to the plaintiffs/respondents. The Courts were, therefore, justified in rejecting the amendment application. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP