Diksha Rane 19 WP 30 2004.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 19 WRIT PETITION NO.30/2004 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4709/2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.30/2004 SHRI. DILIPKUMAR PRANJEEVAN THAKKAR ..PETITIONER VS SMT. KASHIBEN NANALAL THAKKAR and ORS. ..RESPONDENTS ------------ Adv. D. Mhaispurkar a/w. Adv. Rishikesh Pawaskar for petitioner/applicant in IA. ------------ CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 10 JULY 2026. P.C. : 1) Mr.Mhaispurkar submits that this petition was filed by the landlord, who had filed eviction suit on the ground of bonafide requirement and subletee as the premises was further subleted by the tenant an application was moved to amend the plaint by adding the new subletee as a party to the plaint, along with consequential amendments. He submits that amendment application was allowed. However, only the cause title of the plaint was amended, and the consequential paragraphs were not added in the plaint. Subsequently, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Being dissatisfied with the 1 / 2 026:BHC-AS:2 Diksha Rane 19 WP 30 2004.doc dismissal of the suit, regular civil appeal was preferred. So also, an application for amendment of plaint was preferred. The said application for amendment was rejected. The appeal is still pending before the appellate Court. The present writ petition challenges the rejection of amendment application. 2) Rule has been issued in the writ petition and the stay has been granted to the proceedings of appeal. In the meanwhile, the petitioner died. Hence, this application to bring on record the legal heirs of sole petitioner. 3) I have heard Mr.Mhaispurkar and I have gone through the contents of the interim application. A case is made to allow this interim application. 4) Interim application stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). 5) Amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. (Rajesh S. Patil, J.) 2 / 2 Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 10/07/2026 20:09:16