27-wp-1859-2017-wp-967-2015.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1859 OF 2017 M/s. Modi Builders … Petitioner vs. Mrs. Jumana Yusuf Daruwala nee Miss. Jumanbai Zakiruddin and Ors … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 967 OF 2015 Smt. Jumana Zakiuddin Abdelly Rangwala and Ors … Petitioners vs. M/s. Modi Builders and Ors … Respondents Mr. Joel John Carlos for the Petitioners in WP/1859/17. Adv. Heenal Wadhwa for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in WP/1859/17 and for Petitioner in WP/967/15. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 8th APRIL 2026 ORDER: 1. Writ Petition No. 1859 of 2017, is filed by the original plaintiff. Writ Petition No. 967 of 2015, is filed by defendant nos. 1 to 4, challenging the order passed by the trial court partly allowing the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff. By the amendment application, the plaintiff prayed for deletion of certain prayers as mentioned in paragraph no. 5 of the application. The said deletion is Page no. 1 of 2 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2026.04.09 16:49:23 +0530 27-wp-1859-2017-wp-967-2015.doc allowed; however, addition of paragraph no. 7(b) is refused. The proposed amendment in paragraph no. 7(b), pertains to service of summons upon defendant no.7. Hence, the said amendment is not necessary in the suit. The amendment is therefore rightly rejected by the trial court. 2. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, have challenged the order to the extent permitting the deletion of the prayer clauses. 3. The application was filed at the pre-trial stage. I therefore, see no reason for the defendants to challenge the order permitting deletion of prayers. The said defendants can always file additional written statement to the amended plaint. 4. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Hence, the writ petitions are rejected. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 2 of 2