1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6594 OF 2008. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6910 OF 2009. Natthu Govind Shewale ... Petitioner. Versus Amol Ravikant Wani and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.P.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.L.D.Vakil, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 14.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The amendment application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and hence,the petitioner challenges the order rendered by the 2 learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.),Nandurbar, in this behalf. The petitioner filed suit (RCS No.52/2006) for declaration of ownership and injunction. He filed application for amendment of the plaint vide Exh.34. He sought amendment in order to introduce alternate relief for recovery of possession of the suit property. He asserted that if it is proved that the suit property is not in his possession then he may be held entitled to claim possession thereof. He also submitted that possession of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 may be held unlawful as they have taken forcible possession. The learned Civil Judge held that such inconsistent pleadings can not be introduced by way of amendment. 3. The relief claimed in the suit is regarding declaration to the effect that the suit property (Gat No.20) is owned and possessed by the petitioner and the defendant Nos.5 to 7. It is not the case of the petitioner that the contesting defendant Nos.1 to 3 dispossessed him after filing of the suit. In case of dispossession during pendency of the suit, such 3 relief could be claimed. The cause of action for declaration of ownership and also declaration of possession is on quite different footings. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was dispossessed prior to filing of the suit. It is but natural that the amendment was sought with a view to introduce the plea to seek alternate relief. However, the petitioner, being plaintiff of the suit, can not claim inconsistent pleas. The learned trial Judge has rightly relied on "Baldev Sigh and others Vs. Manohar Singh and another" AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2832, in support of the view that such inconsistent amendment can not be introduced. No perversity is noticed. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the supervisory jurisdiction and as such the petition is dismissed. 4. The interim relief stands vacated. C.A. disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp659408