In the plaint, the petitioner had not given all the requisite details about his bona fide requirement regarding demolition and construction of a new building. He, therefore, filed an application for amendment of the plaint to incorporate the details. By the proposed amendment, he sought to plead that he had got the plans of new construction prepared from an architect. He also proposed to plead that the petitioner would offer new premises in the reconstructed building to the respondent. The application was rejected by the trial Court. Aggrieved petitioner is before this Court.
6. The order of rejection of application is very laconic and is quoted below in verbatim.
"Read the application and say. Heard the counsel of plaintiff. Amendment sought will change the nature of the suit. Hence application is rejected."
To say the least, the learned Judge does not appear to have applied his mind to the application for amendment. The petitioner had already pleaded in the original plaint that he required the suit premises for the purpose of demolition and erection of a new building thereon. All that he wanted to plead by way of an amendment was to give details about that requirement and make an offer that he was willing to offer to the respondents new premises in the reconstructed building. The details were only elaboration of the ground and cannot be said to be a new ground so as to change the nature of the suit. Consequently, the order is required to be set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
W.P. No. 10922 of 2009
Decided On: 15.07.2010
Ajit Narsinha Talekar
Vs.
Nirmala Wamanrao Kekade and Ors.
Coram:
D.G. Karnik, J.
Citation:2010 (5) MHLJ 481
