1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1218 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. A.B. Borkar for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. Learned A.G.P. waives service for the respondents. 3. Taken up for hearing forthwith. 4. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16 October 2009 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner 2 had originally filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing his construction carried out in the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the construction was demolished. The petitioner thereafter sought leave to amend the plaint. That application has been rejected by the impugned order. 5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge has not given adequate reasons for rejection of the application for amendment. In para 9 of the order it is observed thus: “It appears that the plaintiff has not established condition precedent to allow application for amendment of his plaint. In such circumstances, I do not find substance in contention raised by plaintiff and his advocate.” 3 The learned Judge has not discussed what is the condition precedent for allowing the amendment and how that has not been fulfilled. The order, to say the least, does not give adequate reasons for rejection of the application for amendment. 6. Ordinarily, all amendments are to be allowed save and except in exceptional cases including the claim barred by limitation or where it is sought to be made after commencement of the trial (see proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C.). In the present case, the trial has not commenced and I see no reason why the application for amendment should not be allowed. Amendment has been sought in view of demolition of the structure of the petitioner after filing of the suit. As such, the application should have been allowed. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The application for amendment is 4 allowed. The petitioner shall carry out the amendment within 4 weeks of the writ reaching the Trial Court and the intimation thereof to the petitioner. 8. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)