(1) WP 5383.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5383 OF 2010 Smt. Sarojini P. Raghawan and ors. Petitioners VERSUS Kashinath S/o. Dattatray Bari Respondent ..... Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard. 2. The Petition is filed against order rendered by the appellate Court on application (Exh.20) in the proceedings of Civil Appeal no. 121 of 2008. The first appellate Court allowed the amendment application filed by the appellant-landlord. The landlord filed suit for eviction which came to be dismissed. It was contention of the landlord/respondent that the defendant shifted the residence to a newly constructed bungalow w.e.f. 6.5.2009 and thereby kept the suit premises unused. (2) WP 5383.2010 The amendment was sought in order to place on record subsequent developments which occurred after the decision of the trial Court. It is argued by learned Advocate Mr. Sant that the amendment will permit new cause of action to be taken cognizance of and will require further evidence. 3. It is well settled that the appeal is continuation of the suit as such. If any further evidence is to be adduced, the first appellate Court will be competent to do so. The amendment does not change nature of the suit. The amendment proposed by the respondent only seeks to bring on surface of the record further developments which would give the right to the landlord for seeking eviction of the petitioners. Whether such developments are of a character which require consideration by the appellate Court is another aspect of the matter and that can be decided on merits of the matter. It is well settled that all the developments may not be taken into account and only those developments which go to the root of the matter will have to be considered by the first appellate Court. (3) WP 5383.2010 4. In this view of the matter, the amendment allowed by the first appellate Court is legal and proper. No interference is called for. Petition disposed of. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp