1 wp-8698-11.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8698 OF 2011 Noor Mohammed Yasin Ghone ..Petitioner Versus M/s. Megha Infrastructure Developers ..Respondents Mr. Akhilesh Upadhyay for the Petitioner Mr. E.K.Sasidharan for the Respondents CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 19th December, 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 14-7-2011 passed by the Learned Judge of Bombay City Civil Court, at Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai, by which Order, the Application for amendment of the plaint came to be rejected. 2 The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff who initially presented the plaint in S.C. Suit No.1175 of 2006 in the year 2006. However, there were objections in the suit as a result of which, the suit was not being registered and ultimately it was registered on 10-6-2009. In the context of the present impugned Order, it would be relevant to note that the suit as originally filed is for a declaration that the Defendants/Respondents herein has not any right to enter into or interfere in right, title and 2 wp-8698-11.sxw interest or dispossess the Plaintiff from the suit property i.e. land and tenement over CTS No.103 (1 to 33) Bandivali S.V.Road, Jogeshwari (West) Mumbai 400 102. The second prayer is that the agreement if any have been executed by the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property in favour of the Defendant and/or in name of its partner be declared null and void in the period of January 2002 to December 2004. It is pertinent to note that though the declaration was sought, that a document be declared as null and void, the prayer does not mention the date of the document. 3 The instant application in question i.e. Chamber Summons No. 325 of 2010, came to be filed by the Plaintiff for the amendment of the plaint so as to replace the undated document with a conveyance dated 11-12-2002 registered on 24-1-2003. By the proposed amendment the property bearing CTS No.103, 103/1 to 33 and Hissa No.22 and Survey No.3 was also sought to be included. By the proposed prayer clause i.e. prayer clause (bb) now a decree is sought to the effect that the conveyance dated 11-12-2002 registered on 24-1-2003 be declared null and void and not binding upon the Plaintiff un-operative and same be cancelled. The cause for filing of the said application was that the Plaintiff has received the said information during the hearing of a 3 wp-8698-11.sxw proceeding by Tahsildar Andheri in the year 2006 and therefore, the said facts would have to be incorporated in the plaint. 4 The Trial Court as indicated above by the impugned Order dated 14-7-2011 has rejected the said application. The rejection is on the twin grounds namely that the incorporation of the said amendments in the plaint would change the nature of the suit and that the said amendments have been filed belatedly and there is no explanation for the same. In the light of the facts as narrated above and taking into consideration the suit as originally filed and the proposed amendment now sought to be introduced in the plaint, in my view, no exception can be taken to the impugned Order passed by the Trial Court. 5 In that view of the matter, no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ( R. M. SAVANT, J. )