1 WP-6278-11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6278 OF 2011 Smt.Nandabai Ramesh Kale ..Petitioner Vs Uttam Baburao Pawar and ors. ..Respondents -- Mr.R.M.Haridas i/b.Mr.P.N.Joshi, for petitioner. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 13 th SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C.. Heard Mr.R.M.Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2] The original defendant has challenged order dated 13 th June, 2011 below exhibit 32 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Niphad, District Nashik. By that order, the learned trial Judge allowed application made by the respondent plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2 WP-6278-11.odt 3] Mr.Haridas submitted that initially respondent plaintiff instituted suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 16 th June, 2006 executed by original defendant no.2 Baburao in favour of original defendant no.1. The said suit was instituted on 24th March, 2008. However, subsequently, the plaintiff filed application at Exhibit 32 on 15 th February, 2011 for amendment of the plaint as also for impleading defendant nos.4 to 8. He submitted that by the proposed amendment, the nature of suit is totally changed. Earlier the suit was only for declaration that the sale executed on 16th June, 2006 by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 to be declared as illegal. If the proposed amendment is permitted, it will enlarge the scope of the suit. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 4] The learned trial Judge, after considering the material on record, found that the issues are not yet framed and the trial is yet to commence. Considering that the stage of the suit viz. pre-trial stage, he held that amendment is not sought at the fag end of the trial. He held that no rights have been accrued in favour of the defendants 3 WP-6278-11.odt which are taken away by the proposed amendment. He further came to the conclusion that the amendment proposed is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 5] After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find that the learned trial Judge committed any error in allowing application for amendment. In my opinion, the order passed by the learned trial Judge is an interlocutory in nature and in case the suit is decided against the petitioner, it would be open for him to raise this as one of the grounds while filing a substantial appeal. With these observations Writ Petition is rejected. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]