1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4997 OF 2008. Ramesh Bhagwan Thamke ..vs.. Suryabhan Hari Navghare and others. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: S.R.DONGAONKAR,J . Dated : 21st March 2009. Heard Mr.P.D.Meghe, learned counsel for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. Heard finally. The petitioner has challenged the order of rejection of his amendment application, which was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.Code in Spl.C.S.No.204 of 2005. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the original defendants. The permanent injunction was sought for restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession over the suit property. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter because of 2 order of grant of temporary injunction passed in R.C.S.No.181 of 2006 dated 6th February, 2007, he came to know that part of suit property was sold by the defendant to one Sukhsagar Co-Operative Housing Society of which description is given in the amendment application. Therefore, according to him, he is impleading defendant no.4 as necessary party. He also sought corresponding amendment to the plaint making out a case against this proposed defendant no.4. The learned trial judge, by impugned order, rejected the application. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him, the observation of the trial judge that proposed amendment will create a new case which cannot be allowed, is incorrect. According to him, the petitioner/plaintiff came to know about this only after he came to know about the said injunction order in the above referred suit. In the circumstances of the case, when it is alleged that the defendants have sold the part of the suit property in favour of proposed respondent no.4, though belated, the learned trial judge should have allowed the amendment application, to avoid 3 multiplicity of proceedings. It is obvious that there is no contest on the part of respondents in the present petition. As such writ petition needs to be allowed. The impugned order dated 25/8/2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The said application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is hereby allowed. He may carry out the necessary amendment subject to the consequential amendment by the defendants. After impleading defendant no.4, the suit be decided in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. JUDGE. chute