1 wp 7042.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7042 OF 2011 1. Bapu S/o Narayan Gaikwad, Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Chimbale (Kalewadi), Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Jyoti W/o Gorakh Randive, Age : 30 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Ranjangaon Sandas, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Pune. 3. Smt. Kantabai W/o Narayan Gaikwad, Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Chimbale (Kalewadi), Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Nirmala W/o Bapu Gaikwad, Age : 28 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Chimbale (Kalewadi), Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. Chabubai W/o Dinkar Lagad, Age : 80 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Kolgaon, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Seetabai W/o Narayan Gaikwad, Age : 70 Years, Occu. : Household, 2 wp 7042.11 R/o Pimpalsuti, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Pune. 2. Manubai W/o Ashok Farate, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Pimpalsuti, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Pune. 3. Chandrakala W/o Kailas Bhagat, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Bhose, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Dadasaheb S/o Nanasaheb Gaikwad, Age : 60 Years, Occu. ; Agril., R/o Chimbhale (Kolewadi), Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. Bhujang S/o Nansaheb Gaikwad, Age : 58 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Chimbale (Kalewadi), Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. 6. Kakasaheb S/o Nanasaheb Gaikwad, Age : 59 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Chimbale (Kalewadi), Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondents Shri S. S. Choudhari, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 to 3. The respondent No. 4 to 6 are not necessary parties. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011. 3 wp 7042.11 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are not necessary parties for the present petition, as the amendment is sought in the plaint by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and allowed by the Trial Court is only assailed in the present writ petition. 3. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed civil suit for partition and separate possession. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners made an application for amendment in the plaint and by amendment sought share in the compensation amount awarded. The said amendment is allowed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 8 have filed the present writ petition. 4. Shri Choudhari, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the said amendment could not have been allowed. The land was acquired and the award was passed in the year 1993. The suit was filed in the year 2007. If the plaintiffs were aggrieved by the said award , they could have filed the reference 4 wp 7042.11 U/Sec. 30. The said claim is not now permissible in the present suit. The learned counsel also contends that the said amendment on the face of it is is barred by limitation. But the Trial Court has not taken into consideration all these aspects and has in a very casual manner allowed the amendment. The said is not permissible. 5. Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the original plaintiffs submits that the amendment is relevant and material for the effective adjudication of the dispute. The merits of the amendment are not required to be considered, while considering the application for amendment. Moreover, even by keeping the point of limitation open the amendment can be allowed. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for respective parties, I have gone through the pleadings, amendment application and the order. It is trite law that while considering the application for amendment the merits of the amendment are not required to be considered. The Court can allow the amendment by keeping the point of limitation open. While passing the impugned order the Trial Court has not dilated on this aspect. 5 wp 7042.11 7. Taking into account the nature of the controversy involved and the relations of the parties, the application for amendment allowed by the Trial Court need not be interfered with. However, the amendment that is allowed shall be subject to the limitation. The present petitioners shall have right to agitate the issue of limitation with regard to the said amendment with all other relevant points concerning the said amendment. 8. In view of that no interference is called for in the impugned order except the fact that the said amendment that is allowed would be subject to the limitation which point the petitioners would be entitled to agitate along with all other points. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of however, with no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11