1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7152 OF 2009 Shri Kamlakar Budhaji Koli. .. Petitioner Vs Mohammad Sheriff Mamudamia Hundekar & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri S.P. Shetye for the Petitioner. Shri Dushyant S. Pagare for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26TH MARCH, 2010 P.C: . On 24th September, 2009, notice for final disposal has been issued. The Respondent No.1 has been deleted. The 2nd to 4th Respondents are represented by an Advocate and the 5th Respondent is duly served. 2. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff who filed a suit for injunction, declaration and specific performance against the Respondents. According to the case of the Petitioner, one Mamudamia Abdul Rehman Hundekar owned certain agricultural lands at Village Shahabaj, District Thane. The 1st to 4th Respondents are the legal representatives of the said Mamudamia. Reliance is placed on a scheme known as 12.5% scheme 2 floated by the State Government for the benefit of the project affected persons whose lands are acquired for the purposes of New Bombay Project. The lands owned by Mamudamia were acquired and an award was made to that effect. According to the case of the Petitioner, the 1st to 4th Respondents applied for grant of a plot under the said Scheme. According to the Petitioner, the 1st to 4th Respondents agreed to sell the said plot to the Petitioner. The allegation has been made that when the Petitioner was ready and willing to offer balance consideration, the same was not accepted by the said Respondents. Various prayers were made including the prayer for declaration that the agreement for sale was valid and also for a specific performance of the said agreement. A decree was sought for against Respondent No.5 enjoining the Respondent No.5 to transfer the plot in the name of the Petitioner. The suit is contested by the 1st to 4th Respondents by filing Written Statement. The 5th Respondent also filed a separate Written Statement. It was contended that the alleged agreement was null and void and was not legally enforceable. 3. An application for amendment of the Plaint was filed by the petitioner. In the said application for amendment at Exhibit-88, the Petitioner contended that he received certain documents on 4th March, 2009 and he was desirous of carrying out certain amendments on the basis of the said documents. By adding certain paragraphs, the Petitioner was desirous of pleading that in similar cases plots under the said Scheme were allotted separately to the landlord and the tenant. Certain paragraphs were 3 sought to be added giving details of the alleged allotments. The said application was opposed by the Respondents and by the impugned order, the application has been rejected. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the amendment was based on the documents which became available in the month of March, 2009, and therefore, the application was moved on 15th April, 2009. He submitted that hence there was sufficient explanation for condonation of delay. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd to 4th Respondents submitted that the proposed amendment was irrelevant considering the nature of pleadings which were sought to be incorporated in the plaint. He submitted that there was gross unexplained delay in moving the application for amendment of the plaint. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. The application for amendment proceeds on the ground that on 4th March, 2009 certain documents were made available to the Petitioner. The application has been made on 15th April, 2009. At the stage of considering the application for amendment, the Court cannot go into the question of the truthfulness or correctness of the text of the amendment. Suffice it to say that the amendment is based on the documents produced by the Petitioner on 4th March, 2009. The issue of relevancy of the averments sought to be added has to be decided by the Trial Court at the time of deciding the suit. There is no reason to deny the amendment. The amendment is not barred by 4 limitation and there is no attempt to withdraw any admission. 6. Hence, the Petition must succeed and I pass the following order. (a) The impugned order dated 23rd April, 2009 is quashed and set aside and the Application at Exhibit-88 is allowed. (b) Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date on which the writ of this order is received by the Trial Court. (c) It will be open for the Defendants to file additional Written Statement within a period of eight weeks from the date on which the amended copy of the Plaint is served to them. (d) The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. (A.S.OKA, J) 5