-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 435 OF 2009 Vilas K. Sable ... Petitioner vs. The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. S.A. Sawant and Mr. Ketan Joshi for the petitioner. Shri P.P. Chavan with Mr. Kiran Gandhi, instructed by M/s. Little & Company, for respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for respondent No.3. Smt. Deepa Chavan, instructed by Mr. Ravindra R. Chile & Ms. Reshmarani J. Nathani, for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 08, 2010. P.C. By way of this Civil Application, the petitioner has prayed for amendment in the original writ petition which is pending, being Writ Petition No. 435 of 2009. The issue raised in the original writ petition is in connection with the seniority dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3- U.H. Meshram. By the said amendment, the petitioner also wants to challenge the seniority of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 whom he has joined in the Civil Application -2- on the ground that they could not have been shown as seniors to the petitioner by virtue of the merger of two departments. 2. This Civil Application is resisted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as well as by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 4 and 3. According to the learned counsel, by enlarging the scope of the original writ petition, it may change the nature of proceedings as also the cause of action. On merits also, according to learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, they have rightly been shown as seniors to the petitioner. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length. In our view, since the issue of seniority is pending in the original writ petition, at this stage it would be in the interest of justice to permit amendment to the petition. However, we make it clear that by granting the amendment, the contentions of other side to the effect that no such prayer can be granted against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as all objections available to the respondents as regards the amendment are explicitly kept open. Whether petitioner can get any relief by virtue of the amendment on merits is required to be examined in the writ petition. The Court has merely permitted the petitioner to raise this point in the original writ petition which is pending. This Civil Application is accordingly allowed as per Schedule-1, Exhibit-P to the -3- application. Leave to delete para 5-W of Schedule-1 is granted. 4. It is clarified that the prayer for interim injunction which is prayed in the amendment is refused. By virtue of the amendment as aforesaid, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the Civil Application be added as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition. The title of the writ petition be amended accordingly. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today. Amended copy be served on the respondents within one week thereafter. Liberty is granted to the respondents to file additional reply to the amended petition within a period of four weeks thereafter. After completion of pleadings, liberty to both sides to apply for early hearing. The Registry is directed to keep proceedings in Writ Petition No. 2483 of 2009 along with the present petition. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.