: 1 : 4156-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4156 OF 2011 Kisan Appa Bailbhinge .. Petitioner v/s. Sanjay Ramchandra Bankar & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. P.K. Hushing for the petitioner Mr. H.G. Wakshe for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Mr. P.M. Shah for respondent nos. 3 and 4. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 14th OCTOBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Wakshe appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 being contesting respondents waives service. Learned advocate Mr. P. M. Shah appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 waives service. By consent, taken up for hearing. 2. The R.C. Suit No. 225 of 2009 is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangola, Dist. Solapur. At the time of filing of the aforesaid suit, petitioner approached the learned Civil Judge, Junior : 2 : 4156-11-wp=.sxw Division, Sangola with a submission that he was in possession of the entire land and that respondent nos. 1 and 2 were directed to interfere with his possession. According to the petitioner, after the institution of the suit respondent nos.1 and 2 committed encroachment in respect of certain portion of the land and constructed some shed on the suit property. On account of this development, petitioner applied for amendment of the said amendment application and the same was granted. 3. According to the petitioner again after few days, the respondent no. 1 committed further encroachment and that is how petitioner was required to make another application for amendment of the plaint so as to deal with the conditional encroachment, which was carried out by respondent nos. 1 and 2. That application was below Exh.70 was decided by learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangola, Dist. Solapur by order dated 17th March, 2011. This order dated 17th March, 2011 is challenged in this petition. 4. I have heard learned advocates on both sides. If the petitioner has approached to the Court with a case that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have carried out encroachment on the suit land on the second occasion and had : 3 : 4156-11-wp=.sxw approached the Court for amendment and the Court to deal with the second encroachment, the application for amendment should have been granted. I have perused the impugned order and in my view, the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangola has not appreciated the point involved in the matter. It may be that on one occasion, the plaint came to be amended but that does not mean if an application for amendment is made on the second occasion on account of a subsequent encroachment as alleged in the amendment application while the suit is pending, the second application for amendment should not have been granted. 5. In my view, in order to avoid multiplicity of suits as regards various encroachments, it was necessary that the amendment should have been granted. Of course, the right of respondent nos. 1 and 2 to deal with the amended plaint was multiplicity, this aspect should have been remembered by the learned trial Judge. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order and grant amendment application below Exh.70. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, following order is passed to dispose of the petition. : 4 : 4156-11-wp=.sxw ORDER (i) Impugned order dated 17th March, 2011 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangola, Dist. Solapur below Exh.70 is set aside. (ii) Application for amendment below Exh.70 is granted. (iii) Petitioner to carry out amendment in terms of application below Exh.70 on or before 19th November, 2011. (iv) After the amendment is carried out, petitioner to serve amended copy of the plaint upon advocates appearing on behalf of the defendants within a period of two weeks from the date of carrying out the amendment. Needless to mention that such of the defendants who are interested in filing additional written statement are at liberty to file the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)