IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 913 WRIT PETITION NO. 11647 OF 2014 SATISH NIVRUTTI KARAD AND OTHERS VERSUS TRIMURTI SUGAR AND ALIED INDUSTRIES LTD, AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS ….. Mr. M. R. Khutwad, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. This Petition takes exception to the order passed below Exhibit 144 in R.C.S. No. 126/2009, whereby the Application filed by the Plaintiffs/respondents herein for amendment to the plaint came to be allowed. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/original Defendants submits that the Petitioners had filed previously three Applications for amendment to the plaint and those were allowed. It is his contention that the Application (Exhibit 144) is a fourth Application and filed after framing of issues. He further argues that if the amendment is allowed, it will change in the nature of the suit. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned order. 913 WP11647.14.odt 1 of 3 2025:BHC-AUG:20846 4. There is no dispute about the fact that the trial has not commenced, in view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Mahadeo s/o Maruti Bhanje Vs. Balaji Shivaji Pathade and another in Writ Petition No. 9659/2010, dated 04/09/2012, wherein it is held that unless affidavit in lieu of examination in chief is filed by Plaintiffs, trial cannot be said to have started. Thus, the Application is not filed post commencement of trial, to attract proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Perusal of the plaint indicates that the suit is for perpetual injunction. The averments are made with regard to the right of the Plaintiffs of egress and ingress from a particular portion of the land belonging to the Defendant. The amendment is sought for incorporating following contentions. ^^2½ nkok dye 7 ps ’ksoVh] ^^7&v½ <ksjtGxkous rsydqMxko jLR;kiklqu if’pesl iz-oknh ua- 1 o 2 ps xV ua- 280 iS- feGdrhps nf{k.ksdMhy cka/kkps vkrqu rlsp iq<s oknkps nkok feGdrhrqu if’pesdMs tk.kkjk oknkrhy jLrk iqoZ&if’pe vlk iqokZikj ofgokVhpk vkgs- oknh] oknhps iqoZgDdnkj] iz-oknh ua- 1]2]6]7 o brj o R;kaps iqoZgDdnkj lnj jLR;kpk R;kaps tehu feGdrhps ofgokV miHkksxdkeh vO;kgri.ks] v[kaMi.ks] m?kMfjrhus] foukrdzkj okij djhr gksrs o vkgsr- es- dksVZ deh’ku gks.ksiqohZ iz-oknhauh [kksVk iqjkok r;kj dj.;kps n`"V gsrqus xV ua- 280 ps dkgh Hkkxkr okgukP;k lkgk¸;kus jLrk ln`"k pdk&;k ikMy;k vkgsr o R;kl iz-oknh jLrk Eg.krkr- okn udks Eg.kqu lnj rFkkdfFkr jLR;kckcr oknhus nkO;kl ck/k u ;srk fodYisd:u ekx.;k dsysY;k vkgsr-** v nq:Lrh dj.ks vkgs- 3½ nkok fouarh dye 14&v ps 'ksoVh] ^^lnj jLrk <ksjtGxkous& rsydqMxko ;k Mkacjh jLR;ko:u if’pesl iz-oknh ua- 1 o 2 ps xV ua- 280 iS- feGdrhps nf{k.k cka/kkps vkrqu ngk rs ckjk QqV :anhpk iqoZ&if’pe vlk if’pesdMs tk.kkjk iqokZikj] foukrdzkj] 913 WP11647.14.odt 2 of 3 vO;kgri.ks o m?kMi.ks ofgokV okijkpk vkgs vls Bjoqu feGkos-** v’kh nq:Lrh dj.ks vkgs-** 6. A perusal of the said amendment sought by the Plaintiffs indicates that the same is elaborative and no new case is trade out. Moreover, the nature of the suit has not been changed by amendment. In any case it is open for the Defendant to resist the said contention by filing additional written statement. The order passed by the learned Trial Court, therefore, is not perverse in order to cause any interference therein. 7. Hence, petition stands dismissed. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 913 WP11647.14.odt 3 of 3