ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the petition by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. The writ petitioner/defendant in Special Civil Suit No.133 of 2013 pending before the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, preferred this petition impugning the order passed by the trial Court permitting the respondents/plaintiffs to carry out the amendment in the plaint. 3. The facts of the case are, thus : Special Civil Suit No.133 of 2013 was instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioner/defendant for sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as damages payable along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The suit was instituted on the ground that the respondents/plaintiffs are socially reputed persons with reputed business and social activities. They had progressed in their business and carried the business in the name and style as “Aaradhana” in Satidham Market, Amravati. 4. It is alleged that petitioner/defendant who is an Advocate by profession having Gold Medalist in law and who had no locus standi to demand possession, had filed various complaints with the Police Department against the respondents/plaintiffs. In the result, the Police authorities had lodged FIRs and private complaint bearing Criminal Case No.1055 of 2011 was also filed by the petitioner/defendant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, on 5.12.2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 384, 420 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code by adopting false and fabricated version and making defamatory allegations against the respondents/plaintiffs. Thus, on the ground that false and malicious prosecution was filed against the respondents/plaintiffs by the petitioner/defendant and also on the ground that on numerous occasions the respondents/plaintiffs were required to attend the proceedings filed against them in the Courts stating further that they were acquitted of the accusation made against them alleging that the proceedings were malicious with a view to cause harm to the respondents/plaintiffs. In the result, the respondents/plaintiffs were required to incur huge expenditure for defending themselves and to save their reputation due to the acts of the petitioner/defendant involving them in false and malicious proceedings and causing huge loss, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. 5. In the result, the respondents/plaintiffs were required to incur huge expenditure for defending themselves and to save their reputation due to the acts of the petitioner/defendant involving them in false and malicious proceedings and causing huge loss, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. 5. The respondents/plaintiffs had initially restricted their suit claim to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- stating, thus : “But for the present suit the plaintiffs restricts and prefers his claim to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- and claim the same as damages from the defendant by way of the present suit. The plaintiffs reserve their rights to enhance the claim in future. Further more the defendants had made various false statement to avoid execution of sale-deed from Shri Nandlal Pahlajani in favour plaintiff no. 2 and personally interrupted the same and even defamed on various occasion at the instance of his sons, wife and other relatives, hence liberty to file separate claim is reserved at proper juncture.” 6. Thus, with such averments in paragraph No.17 of the plaint it appears that the respondents/plaintiffs had moved an application for amendment of the plaint at Exh.22 in the pending Special Civil Suit No.133 of 2013 and prayed for amendment in the plaint to enhance claim to Rs.1.00 Crore instead of Rs.25,00,000/- offering to pay Court Fees, as required, in the sum of Rs.1,33,230/-. 7. The petitioner/defendant opposed the amendment application on the ground that the claim cannot be enhanced beyond the period of limitation as earlier according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant, damages was restricted to the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- which ought not to have been permitted to be enhanced to Rs.1.00 Crore as under Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the respondents/plaintiffs ought to have included the whole claim in the suit for damages. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs that the respondents/plaintiffs had restricted their claim when the plaint was filed with liberty to enhance the claim by making averments in the plaint. It is submitted that at the time of amending the plaint, merits of the claim in the suit cannot be decided but the same can be decided when the parties go to the trial for decision on merits. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant has relied upon the ruling in the case of Ashutosh Chaturvedi ..vs.. It is submitted that at the time of amending the plaint, merits of the claim in the suit cannot be decided but the same can be decided when the parties go to the trial for decision on merits. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant has relied upon the ruling in the case of Ashutosh Chaturvedi ..vs.. Prano Devi alias Parani Devi and ors., reported at 2008(5) SCC 610 to argue that the respondents/plaintiffs are not entitled to add new relief while pleading for amendment as new relief if granted would amount to allow fresh suit which is barred by limitation. My attention is invited to paragraph No.20 of the ruling cited (supra) in which it is observed, thus : “The only remedy which was, thus, available to the appellant might be to file a suit. But as the same itself being barred by limitation, we are of the opinion that the Court would not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the plaint.” The observations were concerning to a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession as also for setting aside the sale-deed executed by the respondent in that case. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the civil appeal was dismissed by the Apex Court on the ground that there was no infirmity in the judgment impugned therein. 10. The reliance is also placed in the ruling in the case of Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) thr. LRs ..vs.. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. Prvt. Ltd. and anr., reported at (2008) 14 SCC 364 to submit that in a suit for declaration and injunction, amendment of pleading was sought during arguments for recovery of possession and damages. That being so, it was held that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy conditions prescribed in proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 and even on merits, his claim for amendment was liable to be rejected. 11. In another ruling in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers ..vs.. Narayanaswamy and Sons and ors., reported at (2009)10 SCC 84 the Apex Court had considered various rulings and summarized the basic principles to be taken into consideration either to allow or reject the application for adjournment viz. 11. In another ruling in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers ..vs.. Narayanaswamy and Sons and ors., reported at (2009)10 SCC 84 the Apex Court had considered various rulings and summarized the basic principles to be taken into consideration either to allow or reject the application for adjournment viz. (1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case?; (2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide?; (3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case?, and (6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. The Apex Court in the case cited (supra) imposed the costs in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) as the appeal was found devoid of any merit. At the same time, it is also concluded by the Apex Court that the Courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments. 12. Considering the above principles and applying the same in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find no serious infirmity in the impugned order which permitted the respondents/plaintiffs to amend the plaint, as earlier in the plaint, it was specifically averred by the respondents/plaintiffs that the respondents/plaintiffs reserve their rights to enhance the suit claim in a suit for damages. Initially, they had restricted their claim to Rs.25,00,000/- in order to file a suit reducing the Court Fees payable to Rs.43,230/-. It must be noted that in paragraph No.17 of the plaint, the respondents/plaintiffs mentioned that they have been put to huge loss, damages and deprived of various amenities and peace, social dignity etc. due to false prosecution which cannot be calculated in terms of money. With these averments and when the respondents/plaintiffs had reserved their rights to enhance the claim in future, it would not be proper for the petitioner/defendant to say that the respondents/plaintiffs could not have been permitted to amend their plaint. 13. due to false prosecution which cannot be calculated in terms of money. With these averments and when the respondents/plaintiffs had reserved their rights to enhance the claim in future, it would not be proper for the petitioner/defendant to say that the respondents/plaintiffs could not have been permitted to amend their plaint. 13. Under these circumstances, of course, it is open for the petitioner/defendant to meet the amended plaint on merits by raising all legal and factual contentions in his additional written statement, if written statement is already filed. That being so, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/defendant, if amendment is permitted and the respondents/plaintiffs are allowed to carry out the amendment in the suit as permitted by the trial Court. 14. That being so, I do not see violation of any fundamental rights or serious legal infirmity in the impugned order so as to necessitate interference by this Court in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 15. In view of above, the writ petition needs to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged, as such. No order as to costs. 17. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the amendment is already carried out in the plaint. That being so, the petitioner/defendant is at liberty to amend his written statement additionally, if any.