62-wp-1653-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1653 OF 2023 Shri Dattatray Bapu Karande and Anr … Petitioners vs. Shri Mohan Bali Lawand and Ors … Respondents Mr. Bhalchandra S. Shinde for the Petitioners. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 13th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. This application is filed by original defendant nos. 1 and 2 to challenge the order passed by the trial court allowing the plaintiff’s application to carry out amendment to the plaint. The suit was initially filed for injunction. By way of amendment, the plaintiff is claiming recovery of possession and a mandatory injunction on the ground that the cause of action to seek such relief arose during the pendency of the suit, after the application for an interim injunction was decided. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit, which was originally filed for simplicitor injunction, is converted for claiming recovery of possession and a mandatory injunction, would be barred by limitation. He therefore submits that the impugned order would require interference by this court. 3. There is no dispute that the trial has not commenced and Page no. 1 of 2 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2025.11.14 14:49:27 +0530 62-wp-1653-2023.doc even issues are not framed. The petitioners have already filed their written statement to the original suit. Since, the trial is not commenced no prejudice would be caused to any party, if the amendment is allowed. The petitioner is always at liberty to file the additional written statement in response to the amended plaint. 4. The trial court has allowed the amendment by observing that the prayer for amendment is in view of the subsequent events, and that the nature of the suit would not change. The petitioners' objection that amended prayers would be barred by limitation cannot be the ground to reject the prayer for amendment. It is the plaintiff’s contention that the cause of action for seeking such amended prayers is based on the events that occurred during the pendency of the suit. The learned trial judge has therefore rightly permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint. 5. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. 7. The petitioners would be at liberty to file the additional written statement to amend the plaint within six weeks from today. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 2 of 2