*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1465/2009 Mukund Ramchandra Kumbhar. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Collector, Kolhapur and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.Surel S. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.SD.Raykar, AGP for the Respondent/State. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 04th December, 2009. PC:- 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2 Petitioner/ original Plaintiff whose appeal is pending on the file of District Judge moved an application for amendment of plaint by having recourse to Order-6 Rule-17 of the Civil Procedure Code and rejection of the said application has given rise to the filing of present Writ Petition. 3 The first Appellate Court has predominantly relied upon proviso to Rule-17 of Order-6 of the Civil Procedure Code while rejecting the application for amendment. 4 The learned counsel for Petitioner has submitted that the present suit has been filed in the year 2001 and proviso to Rule-17 has been brought on the statute book w.e.f. 01.07.2002 and thus, *2* would not apply to the suit instituted prior to the said date. This position is undisputed and is admitted. 5 The learned counsel for Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2007(1) SCC 765 (State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Town Municipal Council). 6 As a wrong provision is relied upon while deciding the application of the present Petitioner inasmuch as reliance has been placed on proviso to Rule-17, the impugned order suffers from patent illegality warranting its quashing. 7 In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the first Appellate Court. The application for amendment stands restored and the first Appellate Court shall decide the same in accordance with law. Rule made absolute in the above terms. (A.P. Deshpande, J)