DNYANOBA Vs. ASHOK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The petitioner is the original-defendant No.1. The respondents-plaintiffs have instituted the suit bearing R.C.S. No. 84 of 1999 for declaration of ownership and decree of perpetual injunction in respect of suit property. During pendency of the suit, the respondents-plaintiffs have filed an application Exh.81 in R.C.S. No. 84 of 1999 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. for carrying out amendment in the plaint. The petitioner-defendant has strongly resisted the said application by filing say at Exh.88. Learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambajogai, by order dated 21.10.2003 below Exh.81 in R.C.S. No. 84 of 1999 allowed the application subject to costs of Rs.200/- to be paid to each of the defendants. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-original defendant No.1 submits that the respondents-plaintiffs have instituted the suit in respect of plot No. 1 house No. 8/1-462 (new house No. 9-279), plot No.2 house No. 8/2-462 (new house No. 9-278). Learned counsel submits that by way of proposed amendment, the respondents plaintiffs have sought insertion of property i.e. plot No.3 house No. 9- 277 in the title clause and also sought mandatory injunction for removal of construction made over the disputed property. Learned counsel submits that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit in its entirety. Learned counsel submits that on 07.08.1999 the Court Commissioner had submitted a report, however, the respondents-plaintiffs have sought amendment belatedly by filing application Exh.81. Learned counsel in the alternate submits that in case if this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the trial court, the petitioner-defendant No.1 (now legal heirs of original defendant No.1) may be permitted to file additional written statement.