AASMA ABDUL MAJEED Vs. JAYRAM ARJUN TISGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned Counsel; Shri Khadapkar for the petitioners and Shri Palekar for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The two petitioners are original plaintiff Nos. 4 and 8. Respondents are the original defendants and the rest of the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE short point which arises for my consideration is whether the order dated 8th October, 1997 rejecting the petitioners (plaintiff Nos. 4 and 8) application for amendment is justified in the facts of the case.

(3.) THE plaintiffs filed Reg. Civil Suit No. 36 of 1983 in the Court of the Civil Judge Jr. Dn. Malegaon. The plaint is dated 19th January 1983. The plaintiffs averred that they were the owners of certain property-land having purchased the same from the defendants in the year 1980. The suit property was already divided into plots in the year 1976 and the division was duly approved by the Asstt. Director of Town Planning on 29th June, 1976. It is averred that the plots were finally sanctioned by the concerned authority. The plaintiffs contended that original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were divested of the ownership of the plots which vested in the plaintiffs pursuant to the sale deed of 1980 though the date of the sale deed is not mentioned in the plaint. It is then averred that the defendants had approached the concerned authority "for change in the lay out of the suit plan without consulting the plaintiffs". This action on the part of the defendants was alleged to be illegal. It is further averred that if the sub-division was sanctioned behind their back, they would suffer irreparable loss and the area of plots was likely to be reduced. There should not be any conversion or change in the size of the plots particularly after the plots were purchased by the plaintiffs.