101.wp.7574.26 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.7574 OF 2026 Sundarlal Lalchand Parware VS The State of Maharashtra and ors. ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.V. Bansod, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms M.H. Deshmukh, AGP for the State. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND R AJNISH R. VYAS , JJ. DATE : 24 .09.2026 Heard. 2. In short, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the original application was preferred initially challenging the order of transfer. Subsequently, by way of amendment, the order setting aside the suspension was also intended to be challenged. A prayer was also made regarding the direction to release and pay an amount to the tune of Rs.26,10,484/- towards arrears with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. He submits that the amendment proposed did not change the nature of relief sought, and therefore, ought to have been allowed by the Tribunal. 3. With the help of learned Counsel, we have gone through the record of the case so also the order impugned. The Tribunal in paragraph 5 of the order has dealt with the aforesaid aspect. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that 2026:BHC-NAG:12671-DB 101.wp.7574.26 2/2 the original cause, which was raised in the petition, was totally different from the case tried to be advanced in the application for amendment. The Tribunal has further observed that order of suspension and payment of the amount can be challenged in a separate proceeding. The Tribunal then finally took into consideration underlying principle of Order 1 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that view of the matter, we do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal. It is crystal clear that the original relief was regarding setting aside the order of transfer, and by way of amendment, what was challenged was the order of suspension. 4. In that view of the matter, we do not find any perversity in the finding given by the Tribunal. 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No costs. (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) *Divya Signed by: Mrs. Divya Baldwa Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/09/2026 15:49:11