1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1643 OF 2010 M/s.Keshowdas Hasanand & Anr. .. Petitioners versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai .. Respondent Mr.S.A.Sawant for the petitioners. Mr.M.M.Malvankar for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 9th March 2010. P.C.: . Rule. The learned advocate for respondent waives service. Taken up for hearing forthwith. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant. The petitioners filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from destroying or pulling down a vehicle-ramp/slope more particularly described in the plaint. A chamber summons was taken out by the petitioner for the amendment of the plaint. The chamber summons is based on alleged subsequent event of the respondent causing damage to the shape of the said ramp. The allegation is that in breach of order of temporary injunction, the said action has been taken by the respondent. The prayer is for adding averments based on the said alleged subsequent event and for adding a prayer for restoration of status-quo ante. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the amendment was based on subsequent event of 23rd December 2008. He 2 pointed out that chamber summons was taken out in August 2009. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and he submitted that no case for interference is made out. 3. I have perused the text of the amendment. According to the petitioners, in breach of order of temporary injunction, the shape of the ramp was altered by the respondent. The proposed amendment is for bringing the said alleged subsequent event on record and for incorporating a prayer for mandatory injunction. The learned trial Judge while rejecting the prayer for amendment observed that the proposed amendment containing the allegations regarding breach of temporary injunction will not help to decide the issue involved in the present suit and therefore, the proposed amendment is not necessary to decide the issue involved in the suit. The learned Judge observed that the petitioner has not prayed for mandatory relief of permission “to construct the structure at the original stage”. 4. The suit filed by the petitioners was for protecting the suit-ramp subject matter of the suit. According to the case of the petitioners, the said ramp was damaged in breach of order of temporary injunction. Therefore, apart from adding averments as regards the alleged subsequent events, a prayer for restoration of status-quo ante was sought to be incorporated. The learned trial Judge has committed a gross error by observing that the amendment was not necessary for deciding the issues involved in the suit. The learned Judge has ignored that a prayer for restoration of status-quo 3 ante was sought to be added by the amendment. The impugned order is erroneous and it deserves to be set aside. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned order dated 18th January 2010 is quashed and set aside. The Chamber Summons No.517 of 2009 is made absolute. (b) The petitioners are directed to carry out amendment within a period of three weeks from the date on which writ of this order is received by the trial Court. (c) It will be open for the respondent to file additional written statement within a period of eight weeks from the date on which amended copy of the plaint is served to the advocate for the respondent. (d) Rule is made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA,J)