jpc wp9439-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9439 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2391 OF 2011 Ashok Kumar Lutra and others ... Petitioners Versus Ajit Sagun Naik ... Respondents and others Mr. Glenn A. Lobo for the petitioners Mr. H. P. Ghadigaonkar, for the respondent No.1 CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 2nd December, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 16th June, 2011 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, by which order the application i.e. Chamber Summons No. 743 of 2010 for amendment of the plaint came to be allowed in terms of the schedule. 2. The respondents herein are the original plaintiffs who have filed a suit being Short Cause Suit No. 1470 of 2005 for declaration that the defendant nos. 2 and 3 i.e the petitioners herein are trespassers in the premises in question and for possession of the two tenements i.e one on the ground floor the other on the upper floor. The cause for moving jpc wp9439-11.sxw 2 the amendment application by way of the Chamber Summons is that after the said suit was filed, the plaintiffs became aware that one of the flats on the upper floor was sold to the proposed defendant no.4 and therefore, the said Chamber Summons was moved for his impleadment and also for incorporating the averments to that effect. The said application, as indicated above, has been allowed by the impugned order. 3. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court was of the view that the said amendments were necessary to be granted for a complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. In my view, considering the dispute that is involved in the suit, the said amendments were necessitated as it would result in the complete adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The learned Judge has has, for the inconvenience caused to the original Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, imposed costs of Rs.500 on the original plaintiffs. In my view, in the facts and circumstances, no case for interference is made out. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the above Civil Application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)