Judgment : Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 27/1/2011 passed by the 21st Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur whereby the amendment application (Exh. 74) filed by the original plaintiff, i.e. respondent no.1 herein came to be allowed and the plaintiff was directed to carry out amendment in the plaint within 14 days from the date of the said order. It is required to be noted that the suit as originally filed, is one challenging the notices under Sections 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 issued by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to the plaintiff. The said notices are in respect of the alleged unauthorized construction carried out by the plaintiff. The present petitioner, who claims to be owner of the property in question, came to be joined as party defendant to said Regular Civil Suit No.1175/2006 sometime in the year 2009. 3) It is pertinent to note that earlier, at an interim stage, the matter had come to this Court and this Court by order dated 20/11/2009 had directed the trial Court to decide the said Regular Civil Suit No. 1175/2006 as early as possible and in any case by 30/4/2010. I am informed at the Bar by the learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, i.e. plaintiff that cross-examination of the plaintiff is yet to commence. 4) By the application in question in which the impugned order came to be passed, the plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint so as to incorporate averments and claim relief against defendant no.3, i.e. petitioner herein so as to restrain her from complaining to the plaintiff’s employer, i.e. Vidarbha Premier Cooperative Housing Society. It is required to be noted that the said application was moved on 12/1/2011 though the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the suit has been expedited and has been directed to be disposed of by 30/4/2010. Be that as it may, in my view, considering the amendment sought, there is no causal connection between amendment and the relief sought in the plaint, which is qua the notices issued under Sections 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Be that as it may, in my view, considering the amendment sought, there is no causal connection between amendment and the relief sought in the plaint, which is qua the notices issued under Sections 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. It is further required to be noted that the trial Court was not aware of the order dated 20/11/2009 passed by this Court by which the suit has been expedited and oblivious of the said fact, the trial Court has allowed the amendment application on the specious ground that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. In my view, considering the subject matter of the suit and also the fact that the suit has already been expedited, it was not at all necessary to grant the said amendment application. The above writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 27/1/2011 is set aside. Since the suit has already been expedited by the order dated 20/11/2009 passed by this Court and since the time set by the said order has already expired, in my view, interest of justice would be served if the trial Court is directed to hear and decide the said Regular Civil Suit No.1175/2006 by 15th September 2011. Needless to say that though the impugned order allowing the amendment application is set aside, it will be open for the plaintiff to file appropriate proceedings against the petitioner herein in future, if so advised. 5) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.