1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2113 OF 2009 Alphonses Babu Xavier Petitioner versus Jamate Muslim and others Respondents V.S.Gokhale for petitioner. Nitin Jamdar for respondents 2,3,5 and 8. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 21st July 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original defendant no.1 in a suit for eviction filed by the first respondent and others. The suit was decreed. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the District Court. An application for amendment of the written statement was made by the petitioner. The first amendment sought was for contending that the original plaintiff nos.2 to 8 who were claiming to be the trustees of plaintiff no.1 trust were not shown in Schedule-I since 1997. The second contention sought to be raised was that the plaintiff no.1 trust has recovered possession of many premises from the erstwhile occupiers and tenants and plaintiff nos.2 to 8 were using the said premises for their personal use for dumping their personal belongings and articles. The learned Additional District Judge rejected the said application by observing that the concerned plaintiffs pointed out that a change report regarding their election as office bearers of public trust is 2 pending before the authority under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. While rejecting the application, the learned District Judge observed that the said question raised is based on law point and this point will be looked into by the Court. An application for review was filed by the petitioner. The review was on the ground that the learned Judge has not considered certain part of the amendment regarding availability of additional premises and use thereof by the second to eighth plaintiffs. The application for review was rejected. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the text of the proposed amendment. He submitted that the proposed amendment was based on subsequent event of the plaintiffs obtaining possession of certain premises and therefore, the said amendment ought to have been allowed. 3. A perusal of the text of the amendment and the application for amendment shows that the averments regarding acquisition of certain vacant premises by the plaintiffs are very vague. No particulars such as description of the premises has been incorporated either in the application for amendment or in the text of the amendment. On the basis of such vague averments, the amendment could not have been permitted at the appellate stage as the material particulars were not pleaded by the petitioner. On this ground there was justification for not granting that part of the amendment. As far as first part is concerned, the District Court has already permitted the petitioner to argue on that aspect. 4. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)