1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1275 OF 2010 1. The Jalna People's Co Operative Bank Limited, Jalna, Kavi Ramkrishna Shola Square, Sadar Bazar, Jalna Through Their Chairman/General Manager. 2. Mrs Nirmla Ashokji Karwa, Vice Chairman, The Jalna People's Co Operative Bank Limited, Jalna, Kavi Ramkrishna Shola Square, Sadar Bazar, Jalna. 3. K.G. Warma, Junior Officer, Acting General Manager, The Jalna People's Co Operative BanK Limited, Jalna Kavi Ramkrishna Shola Square, Sadar Bazar, Jalna. ....Petitioners. Versus 1. Yogita Madhukar Shinde Age 32 yrs., Occu. Service, R/o. Jalna, Tahsil and Dist. Jalna. 2. District Deputy Registrar, Jalna. 3. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. ....Respondents. Mr. Anand Chaware, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. D.R. Irale-Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. DATED : 22nd November, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard 2 finally by consent. 2. By way of present petition, petitioners challenge the order dated 16.1.2010 passed by the learned Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in Revision No. 24/2009, by which order, the Appellate Court has confirmed the order dated 21.12.2009 of the Trial Court, allowing the amendment sought by the petitioner, in dispute before it. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that by allowing the amendment, the substratum and the nature of the dispute would change and therefore, such an amendment cannot be allowed. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of A-1 Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R. Jaikishan & Co. & Ors., 2005 (1) Bom. C. R. 50, wherein it is held that amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings as long as it is not prejudicial to the rights of other side and does not change the nature or touch the substratum of the dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioners further states that he has already filed an application under section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code to frame preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction and that to pre-empt this application, the amendment is sought. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order is required to be set aside. 3 4. The learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order. It is also pointed out that the amendment has already been carried out way back. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including impugned order. In para 14 of the impugned order, the learned Appellate Court has observed as follows :- "14. After perusing original dispute & relief sought thereunder, I find that by way of amendment the terms of dispute are not altered & amendment is not touching the substratum of dispute. Admittedly the relief is already sought for by the disputant for setting-aside the termination order dated 19.11.09 allegedly illegally passed by the bank and by way of amendment the similar relief sought in a declaratory form. I find that there is sufficient pleading to that effect on record. According to me, the amendment sought for is bonafide. If the same is allowed, nature of the original dispute is not going to be changed. The said amendment application is not taken by surprise. The issue of jurisdiction by the applicants herein is still open before the Trial Court. The amendment as sought for is inconsonance with the earlier pleading and no new grounds are going to be introduced by way of amendment and hence, the same is required to be allowed." 4 6. It is by now well settled that the Courts need to have a liberal approach in granting amendment to pleadings when the trial has not commenced. Undisputedly in the present matter the trial has not commenced. It is significant to note that there is already a prayer in the dispute for setting aside the termination order dated 19.11.2009 and the proposed amendment is only ancillary or in furtherance to the averments and prayers already sought. Considering the above, I do not find that the nature of the dispute or the substratum thereof would change or any prejudice would be caused to the petitioners by the amendment. It is further noticed that the amendment has already been carried out and though the above petition is pending since January 2010, it appears that no ad-interim reliefs have been sought and/or granted in the petition. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is just and proper and warrants no interference in the discretion exercised by the Appellate Court which affirmed the order of the Trial Court. Writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. [ A. A. SAYED ] Judge ssc/wp1275.10