1 WP 6026/2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6026 OF 2003 Shri Laxman Balwant Patil.... Petitioner Vs. Smt. Kamlabai Shamrao .... Respondents Suryawanshi & Ors. Mr. N.S. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.V. Sutar, Advocate for respondents no.1,2,4 & 5. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 1st October, 2010. P.C. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 19th January 2001 by which application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.88 of 1980 filed by him was dismissed. 2. In the year 1980, the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.88 2 WP 6026/2003 of 1980 against his adoptive mother (defendant no.3), daughter of adoptive mother (defendant no.1), son of defendant no.1 (defendant no.2) and three more persons for permanent injunction to restrain defendant no.3 from creating rights over the properties described at paragraph 1 of the plaint in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2 and for a permanent injunction to restrain defendants no.1 and 2 from disturbing joint possession of the petitioner of the said properties. Some time in the year 1993, defendant no. 3 died. As a consequence, actually the suit became infructuous and ought to have been dismissed as such. However, the petitioner made an application for amendment of the suit submitting that after the death of defendant no.3, the other defendants in collusion dispossessed him in December 1993 from the suit properties and to seek possession of the properties from the defendants i.e. defendants nos. 1,2 and 4 to 6 by adding prayers b(1) to the plaint. This amendment was surprisingly allowed though the amendment completely changed the nature of the suit. Be that as it may, thereafter, the petitioner filed one more application for amendment at Exhibit 116. By this amendment, the petitioner sought to add one more property into the list of properties at paragraph 1 of the 3 WP 6026/2003 plaint and also to implead 9 persons to the suit from whom he seeks to take possession of not only the property to be added in the plaint by way of amendment, but also of the properties already mentioned in the plaint. In the proposed amendment, the petitioner nowhere states as to how the persons who are proposed to be impleaded to the suit have dispossessed him of the suit properties. There are no particulars whatsoever of dispossession stated in the proposed amendment. He had also sought to bring on record the revision survey numbers of the properties described in the plaint. The application was opposed by the respondents contending that it was a malafide application and the proposed amendment would introduce new cause of action in the suit. It was also contended that the amendment was barred by law of limitation, since any prayer for possession of the suit properties from the parties proposed to be added to the plaint was filed after a period of 20 years from the date of alleged dispossession. The trial Court accepted all the contentions of the respondents and dismissed the application. 3. I find no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned order. In the first place as already stated above, the very first amendment of 4 WP 6026/2003 introducing prayer for possession into the plaint could not have been allowed. Now for the same act of dispossession, the petitioner wants to hold 9 more persons responsible and seeks possession of the properties from them after the lapse of 20 years. The proposed amendment as has been rightly held by the trial Court introduces new cause of action to the plaint, which cannot be permitted. It is also patently barred by the law of Limitation as far as the proposed defendants are concerned. In the circumstances, the application for amendment cannot be said to be bonafide. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)