1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5035 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Renuka Ghule,Counsel for Petitioner. .......................... [ CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. ] DATE : 6th AUGUST,2009 1. Heard Renuka Ghule,learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the Order dated 9/1/2009 passed by 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Vaijapur below Exh. 37 in R.C.S. No. 362 of 2005. Petitioner is original defendant and respondent is original plaintiff. The respondent filed R.C.S. No. 362 of 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Vaijapur for declaration that the respondent is owner of 2 Acres 24 Gunthas land out of G.No. 137 2 situated at village Waghala, Tq. Vaijapur. Thereafter, respondent/original plaintiff filed application for measurement of G.No. 137 and in the said application, the Court appointed Taluka Inspector of Land Records (for short ‘ T.I.L.R.’), Vaijapur as Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner submitted his report. On the basis of the said report, respondent filed application dated 22/2/2008 under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint. In the said application, the respondent sought amendment on the basis of T.I.L.R’s report dated 5/10/2007. The Respondent by the proposed amendment, wanted to bring those subsequent events on record and as a consequence of those subsequent events, desired to seek possession of the encroached portion of the property from the petitioner. The proposed amendment did not change the nature of the Suit. In fact, by allowing the amendment application, multiplicity of proceedings could be avoided. The trial Court following this principle allowed the application filed by respondent 3 under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint. 2. I do not find any substance in the present Writ Petition, in which the petitioner challenges the Order dated 9/1/2009 passed by 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Vaijapur below Exh. 37 in R.C.S. No. 362 of 2005. Writ Petition dismissed summarily. [ K.K. TATED, J. ] knp/WP5035.09