JUDGMENT - B. LENTIN, J.:---This Civil Revision Application arises out of the order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, disallowing the plaintiffs application for amendment of the plaint except for the portion bracketed by the learned Judge in the schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons for amendment. 2. On 29th July, 1974, the plaintiff, who is the petitioner before me, filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay, being Suit No. 5639 of 1974, against the respondents (original defendants) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from interfering with the petitioners use and occupation, enjoyment and exclusive possession of certain premises, namely Room No. 56 in Jam Building No. 3, 3rd floor, Lalbaug, Bombay, and from taking forcible possession thereof and/or entering therein and for other consequential reliefs. On 30th July, 1974, the petitioner obtained an ad interim injunction against the respondents in a Notice of Motion taken out by him. That Notice of Motion is pending in the City Civil Court. 3. According to the petitioner, the room was acquired for the petitioner on 12th August, 1972 and a sum of Rs. 8,500/- was paid by the petitioner to respondents 1 and 2 and a writing in respect thereof was obtained in the name of the 1st respondent. Further according to the petitioner, on 19th June, 1974, one Janardhan Ganpat Shinde admitted in a conversation which took place between the petitioner, his brother-in-law one N.R. Bhor, and Janardhan Ganpat Shinde at his native place, that this Room No. 56 was acquired for the petitioner and that a sum of Rs. 8,500/- has been paid by the petitioner and that a writing in respect of this room was taken in the name of the 1st respondent and that the other respondents have no right, title or interest in this room. According to the petitioner, this conversation which took place on 19th June, 1974 was tape-recorded that day while the conversation was in progress. 4. Further according to the petitioner, on the following day, namely 20th June, 1974, a similar conversation took place between the petitioner, the 1st respondent, the petitioners father one Bhimaji More and the petitionerss brother-in-law N.R. Bhor. According to the petitioner, this conversation which took place on 19th June, 1974 was tape-recorded that day while the conversation was in progress. 4. Further according to the petitioner, on the following day, namely 20th June, 1974, a similar conversation took place between the petitioner, the 1st respondent, the petitioners father one Bhimaji More and the petitionerss brother-in-law N.R. Bhor. According to the petitioner, this conversation took place in the suit premises and that in the course of this conversation, the 1st respondent admitted that he, i.e. the 1st respondent, had nothing whatsoever to do with this room and that the amount of Rs.. 8,500/- was paid by the petitioner and the writing was taken in the name of the 1st respondent and that the 1st respondent and assure the petitioner to transfer the rent bill to the petitioners name. According to the petitioner, this conversation was also tape-recorded on 20th June, 1974 while the conversation was in progress. However, according to the petitioner, in the last week of July, 1974, the respondent started harassing the petitioner and threatened to take forcible possession of the Room No. 56, with the result that the petitioner field his suit in the City Civil Court for the reliefs set out above. 5. According to the petitioner, at the time of the filing of the suit, it was through an oversight on his part that he did not inform his attorneys about the conversations of 19th and 20th June, 1974 which had been tape-recorded, with the result that neither of these conversations, nor the tapes were alluded to in the plaint. Admittedly, it was in the affidavit-in-rejoinder at the time of the Notice of Motion that the petitioner disclosed these two conversations of 19th and 20th June, 1974, as also that these conversations had been tape-recorded. It is not in dispute that thereafter on 25th August, 1974, inspection of the tapes by way of allowing the respondents to hear the conversations of 19th and 20th June, 1974, was given, as also a typed script of these tapes. 6. On 10th December, 1974, the petitioner took out a Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint. This Chamber Summons was disposed of by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, who, on 19th December, 1974, referred the following order :--- "P.C. Chamber Summons mad absolute. Amendment relating to the bracketed portion allowed. 6. On 10th December, 1974, the petitioner took out a Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint. This Chamber Summons was disposed of by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, who, on 19th December, 1974, referred the following order :--- "P.C. Chamber Summons mad absolute. Amendment relating to the bracketed portion allowed. Amendment in regard to declaration unnecessary. It has no substance. No order as to costs. Amendments to be carried out within 4 weeks." Being aggrieved by not being allowed to carry out the amendment pertaining to the alleged conversation of 20th June, 1974, the petitioner has taken out the present Civil Revision Application. 7. The schedule of the Chamber Summons is somewhat lengthy. It is however unnecessary to refer to the entire schedule, as Mr. J.M. Gandhi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, stated before me that he would confine his arguments only to that portion of the schedule pertaining to the alleged conversation of 20th June, 1974, which has been disallowed by the learned trial Judge. 8. The bracketed portions of this schedule whereof amendment was granted to the petitioner, pertains to the alleged conversation that took place on 19th June, 1974. The portion of the schedule pertaining to the alleged conversation of 20th June, 1974 had been disallowed by the learned trial Judge, as stated above. 9. From the order passed by the learned Judge, it is difficult, with respect to him, to fathom the reasoning which prompted the learned Judge in allowing the amendment pertaining to the alleged conversation of 19th June, 1974 and in the same breath disallowing the amendment pertaining to the alleged conversation of 20th June, 1974. It was, however, contended by Mr. Gupte, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that the earlier alleged conversation of 19th June, 1974 was allowed by the learned Judge because that was supposed to be a conversation between the petitioner and third parties, whereas the later alleged conversation of 20th June, 1974 was disallowed by the learned Judge as that was supposed to be a conversation in which the 1st respondent is alleged to have taken part. It is difficult to appreciate the reasoning behind this contention, which at best is conjecture, as it is not reflected in the order itself. With respect, it would have been logical, if both the alleged conversations had been allowed or disallowed. It is difficult to appreciate the reasoning behind this contention, which at best is conjecture, as it is not reflected in the order itself. With respect, it would have been logical, if both the alleged conversations had been allowed or disallowed. But the recourse adopted by the learned Judge is, in my humble opinion, some what bewildering. 10. It was contented by Mr. Gupte that an entirely new case was sought to be made out by the petitioner in respect of the alleged conversation of 20th June, 1974 and hence the learned Judge was justified in disallowing the proposed amendment of the plaint in respect of that alleged conversation. This contention of Mr. Gupte suffers from an obvious fallacy, namely that if the case of the petitioner pertaining to the alleged conversation of 20th June, 1974 is a new case, so also would the case of the petitioner pertaining to the alleged conversation of 19th June, 1974. Mr. Gupte was unable, and to my mind rightly so, to show any rational or logical differentiation why on the same basis the earlier alleged conversation of 19th June, 1974 should have been allowed to the incorporated in the plaint and not the late alleged conversation of 20th June, 1974. 11. Mr. Gupte contended that neither the conversations of 19th June, 1974 or 20th June, 1974, nor the tapes had been alluded to in the plaint and that if these conversations had in fact taken place, the petitioner would surely have given the necessary instructions to his solicitors at the time of filing the suit. Thus Mr. Gupte contended that what the petitioner seeks to make out is a new case and that the tapes have been got-up by the petitioner for the purposes of the suit. Mr. Gupte commented that the voice of the tapes pertaining to the alleged conversation of 20th June, 1974, is not that of the 1st respondent. 12. Now, assuming for the moment, that what Mr. Gupte states is correct and that even assuming, a new case is sought to be made out by the petitioner, that factor, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would by itself be no criterion for disallowing the amendment in respect of the alleged conversation of 20th June, 1974. That aspect of the matter could be the subject-matter of cross-examination in the suit. That aspect of the matter could be the subject-matter of cross-examination in the suit. It would then be open to the respondents to elicit by way of cross-examination that the alleged conversation of 20th June, 1974 in fact never took place and that the same has been got-up for the purposes of the suit as contended by Mr. Gupte. 13. In the circumstances, the petitioner shall be allowed to further amend the plant to the extent of the reference to the alleged conversation of 20th June, 1974 as appearing in the schedule to the Chamber Summons as under: "The plaintiff further says that in 20th June, 1974 the plaintiff accompanied by his said brother-in-law N.R. Bhor came down to Bombay and between 1 and 2 P.M. on 20th June, 1974 the plaintiff, the said N.R. Bhor plaintiffs father and the Defendant No. 1 had conversation in respect of room No. 56. The plaintiff says that in the course of the said conversation the Defendant No. 1 admitted that the said Room No. 56 was acquired by the plaintiff and the sum of Rs. 8,500/- was paid by the plaintiff and the writings were taken in the name of defendant No. 1 from the Bhagwan D. Hadkar. The defendant No. 1 further stated that he and other defendants were residing in Room Nos. 57 and 58 and they had nothing to do with room No. 56. The defendant No. 1 assured the Plaintiff that the would take the Plaintiff to the Manager of the Jam Mill and get the said room No. 56 transferred to the name of the Plaintiff." 14. I am informed that the respondents have not field their written statement. Naturally, they will be at liberty to deal with the newly amended portion of the plaint in their written statement. 15. In the result, this Civil Revision Application is allowed and the rule is made absolute. Amendment as indicates above to be carried out by the petitioner in the plaint at the cost of the petitioner on or before 19th February, 1975. Costs of this Civil Revision Application to be costs in the cause. Interim stay vacated. ------