1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10913 OF 2009 Mr. Waman Ramchandra Madaye. .. Petitioner Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. .. Respondent -- Shri Jagdish N. Tayade for the Petitioner. Shri M.M. Malvankar i/by Shri R.A. Malandkar for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. Considering the limited controversy involved in the Petition, the same is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. By the impugned order, an application made by the Petitioner for amendment of the Plaint has been rejected by the learned Trial Judge. 2. The Petitioner filed a suit for declaration that a notice issued by the Respondent-Corporation of demolition and the order of demolition passed are null, void and illegal. A prayer already is made for perpetual injunction. It must be stated here that the suit has been filed on 9th April, 2 2009. A Chamber Summons for amendment of the Plaint was taken out on 3rd October, 2009. The amendment sought is essentially for incorporating a detailed description of the suit premises. While rejecting the prayer for amendment, the learned Trial Judge has observed that the Notice of Motion taken out for temporary injunction by the Petitioner has been dismissed. An appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the said order has been also dismissed. The learned Trial Judge has observed that the notice under Section 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 has not been issued. After observing all these, the learned Trial Judge has stated that the if proposed amendment is allowed, it will change the cause of action and an attempt is made to fill up the lacuna. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the amendment was necessary for correcting the description of the suit property and for incorporating a detailed description of the suit premises in the Plaint and therefore, when the suit has not reached the stage of trial, amendment ought to have been allowed. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that no case for interference is made out. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is pointed out earlier that the application for amendment was moved within few months after the filing of the suit. Rejection of the Notice of Motion for temporary injunction and confirmation of the said order by this Court has 3 nothing to do with the power of the Court to permit amendment for correcting description of the suit property. Whether the description of the suit property which is sought to be incorporated is correct or not cannot be gone into at the stage when the application for amendment is being considered. The Respondent can always file additional Written Statement for dealing with the amended plaint. There is nothing on record to show that the issues have been settled. As stated earlier, the suit has been filed in April, 2009. 5. The reasons recorded by the learned Trial Judge are completely erroneous. The finding of the learned Trial Judge that the proposed amendment will change the cause of action is completely wrong and there was no reason to deny permission to amend the Plaint. 6. Hence, I pass the following order. (a) The impugned order dated 6th November, 2009 is quashed and set aside. (b) Chamber Summons No.512 of 2009 is made absolute. (c) 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. 4 (d) It will be open for the Respondent to file Written Statement within eight weeks from the date on which the amended copy of the Plaint is served to it. (e) The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. (A.S.OKA, J)