*1* caw.1142.10.wp.7476.09.907.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1142 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7476 OF 2009 Prakash Shankar Wagh. ..Applicant -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Denzil D’mello, for the Applicant. Mr.Janak Dwarkadas and Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Senior Advocates a/w Mr.Sharan Jagtiani i/b Wadia Ghandy & Company, for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr.V.V.Jogalekar i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal & Company, for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7. Mr.Pravin Samdhani, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar and Tushar Bhavsar i/b Tejas Deshmukh, for the Respondent No.9. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1, 10 and 11. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 24th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard both sides. The Applicant/original Petitioner has moved this Civil Application seeking leave to amend the Writ Petition by urging that the events subsequent to institution of this Writ Petition need to be incorporated. 2 My attention is invited to the schedule of this Civil Application wherein the proposed amendments are set out. 3 Mr.Samdhani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.9-Society, submits that the Petitioner is now impugning not just the grant of lease in favour of the Society, but also an order of the *2* caw.1142.10.wp.7476.09.907.sxw Collector approving the list of persons as members of the Society. If the lis is with relation to the land and interest therein, then, the Petitioner has no interest absolutely insofar as the list of members is concerned. That is a matter between the Society and the flat purchasers, so also, the Collector. In the garb of challenging the lease, the Petitioner should not be permitted to raise the distinct cause of action. 4 On the other hand, Mr.D’Mello, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, contends that the challenge is to the lease, but the prayers also incorporate certain incidental reliefs. If the prayer that is proposed to be added, particularly prayer clause (cii) is perused, it is clear that what the Petitioner seeks to impugn is an order dated 01.08.2009 passed by the Collector fixing the terms and conditions in the primary agreement of lease with the Respondent No.9 and thereafter, the incidental orders. He submits that one of the object of amendment is to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, therefore, no prejudice will be caused if the petition is allowed to be amended in terms of the schedule. 5 On own showing of the Petitioner, he is aggrieved by the order passed by the Minister for Revenue & Forest, Government of Maharashtra dated 18.07.2009 confirming some of the orders impugned before him. Further, he seeks to cancel the lease agreement dated 28.08.2009 executed in favour of the Respondent No.9 by the State of Maharashtra. 6 To my mind, the challenge to the orders dated 01.08.2009 and 02.03.2010 can very well be seen in the light of the larger challenge made in the petition. Therefore, these aspects are incidental to the grant of lease. However, the order dated 05.11.2009 of the Collector approving the list of 16 members of the Society is something which must be seen as a matter which is distinct from the cause of action in the petition. If the *3* caw.1142.10.wp.7476.09.907.sxw Petitioner desires to challenge the Collector’s order approving the list, then, he must file independent proceedings. If that aspect is sought to be introduced in the present petition, to my mind, the cause of action will undergo change. The Court will be called upon to consider, even if the main challenge fails or succeeds, the issue of membership which would necessitate impleading of all persons whose names are included in the order dated 05.11.2009. In these circumstances and when the petition is ripe for admission, that aspect need not be introduced in the present petition. Save and except the challenge to the order 05.11.2009, the Writ Petition is allowed to be amended in terms of the schedule. Needless to clarify that the merits of the amendment have not been gone into and the contentions of all parties on the locus of the Petitioner and the maintainability of the proceedings are kept open. Subject to the same, the Civil Application is made absolute. Amendment be carried out within two weeks from today. Needless to clarify that the contentions of all parties insofar as the order dated 05.11.2009 are concerned, remain unaffected by the order passed in the Civil Application. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)