Judgment Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The Petitioner – Applicant has taken out this Chamber Summons to amend, based upon the facts and documents which are the part of pleading of pending Writ Petition, as well as, the Applicant's pending Bombay City Civil Court Suit No.1405/2010 including to add following contesting prayers a(i) and a(iii), supported by the averments.: “a(ii) By a suitable writ or direction, directing the Bombay Municipal Corporation to handover possession of the disputed land to the Petitioner forthwith. a(iii) It be declared that the disputed land is not validly designated for school under Bombay Town Planning Scheme of IV of Mahim.” 2. All the Respondents have opposed the chamber summons/amendment on all counts and specially prayer clauses a(ii) and a(iii) and related averments. The common basic submissions are made by the Respondents that the present amendment is contrary and inconsistent to the existing prayers of the Writ Petition, apart from delay and laches; the whole purpose is to postpone the proceedings at every stage; it is beyond the limitation period also. They submitted that the High Court should not exercise discretionary power in writ jurisdiction. Referred to the various averments to show conduct of the Petitioner, apart from alleged suppression of facts. They resisted on the principles of grant of amendment as provided in Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 3. The principles of amendment are not in dispute. The facts and circumstances of each case are required to be considered, therefore, based upon the pleadings and the material available on record, including the affidavits filed by the Petitioner in the pending proceedings, referring to the controversies and the orders passed by the Courts, from time to time, we are inclined to grant the chamber summons. 4. The order passed by the Supreme Court dated 26 November 2013, in a Special Leave Petition arising from the judgment and order dated 26.6.2012 in the present Writ Petition No.1731/2009, refusing to grant interim reliefs, just cannot be overlooked. The Supreme Court in order dated 26.11.2013 has observed as under:- “This petition is directed against order dated 26th June, 2012 by which the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for interim relief. Arguments in this petition were heard on several dates. Today, Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner made submissions in rejoinder. Arguments in this petition were heard on several dates. Today, Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner made submissions in rejoinder. At the end of his submissions, Shri Jethmalani made a request that his client may be permitted to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to move the High Court for amendment of the pleadings. Shri Ashok Desai, Shri Shekhar Naphade, Shri Shyam Divan and Shri Pallav Shishodia, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and the private respondents submitted that they have no objection provided that this Court may direct the High Court to consider the application to be made by the parties for amendment of the pleadings without being influenced by this order. The request made by Shri Ram Jethmalani is accepted and the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court for amendment of the pleadings, if so advised. If any application for amendment of the pleadings is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the High Court on its own merits in accordance with law. In the event of grant of leave to the petitioner to amend the pleadings, the High Court shall give corresponding opportunity to the respondents to amend their pleadings.” 5. Heard both the parties. We have gone through the record as read and referred by the counsel appearing for the parties, including pleadings in Writ Petition and affidavit dated 28.11.2011 and affidavit dated 24.11.2011 by Respondents 6 and 5 and affidavit of Respondents 1 to 4. We have noted the issues and the related pleadings/averments referring to the undertaking and the action against the Petitioner/Applicant without following Section 89 and 90 of MRTP Act, Development Control Regulation, 1991 (DCR) with effect from first revision of 25.03.1991, D.P. 1991 with effect from 10.03.1992, Town Planning Scheme IV Mahim Second Variation, Second Revision of Development Plan for Greater Mumbai (SRDP), representation on behalf of Petitioners before filing of the writ petition and so also to President/Chief Minister, Government Resolution dated 2.3.1993, Redevelopment without verification of C.S. Plan and Table Survey, changing facts in the sanctioning of redevelopment under Section 33(7) of DCR and capitalization. We find that related facts and averments are already part of the records and well within the knowledge of the basic contesting parties. We find that related facts and averments are already part of the records and well within the knowledge of the basic contesting parties. A comparative chart as placed on record shows the respective paragraphs of writ petition, affidavits and the schedule of the proposed amendment, referring to the issues and the connected averments. The pleadings including the supportive affidavit of the chamber summons and Notice of Motion and orders passed by the City Civil Court Judges also touches and deals with the controversy revolving around the respective contentions. There is no case that the facts revolving around are foreign and/or are not within the knowledge of the contesting parties. All the parties are aware of these facts and controversies revolving around the same. 6. As noted, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 26 June 2012, recorded the pleadings and contention so raised referring to redevelopment of plot No. 267 at Mahim under the DCR and basically the contention that the development plan has been illegally finalised and it is contrary to the Town Planning Scheme and change of user of the plot. So also the aspects of undertakings and the reservation under the Town Planning Scheme and any development permission would defeat the provisions of development plan and as the development plan is for the purposes of housing the dishoused and not for school. The Division Bench also referred the existence of structures on the property prior to 1940 and construction or reconstruction of an old building in accordance with notification dated 3.6.1992 under Section 31 of MRTP Act. The reference was also made to the PIL No.64/2012 involving the parties, including the plot in question and, therefore, refused to grant any ad-interim relief. The apex Court, in above background has permitted the Petitioners/Applicants to file amendment application with a direction to decide the same in accordance with law, in our view, just cannot be overlooked. The Apex Court specifically observed to provide an opportunity to other side for their respective defences, which we are also inclined to grant. 7. The apex Court, in above background has permitted the Petitioners/Applicants to file amendment application with a direction to decide the same in accordance with law, in our view, just cannot be overlooked. The Apex Court specifically observed to provide an opportunity to other side for their respective defences, which we are also inclined to grant. 7. However, the basic opposition, to prayer clause a(ii) and a(iii), in a writ petition, referring to prayer for possession of the disputed land to the Petitioners and that the land is not validly designated for school under Bombay Town Planning Scheme of IV of Mahim, required to be considered from the point of view of earlier pleading so raised in the Petition and so also the elaborated averments, is difficult to accept. At the final stage, considering the scope of writ jurisdiction, the High Court will pass an appropriate order, may or may not grant the reliefs, but for want of such specific prayers, the Petitioners/Applicants would suffer great injustice and hardship and not the Respondents. 8. The aspect of limitation and grant of such reliefs as prayed, through this amendment, are again a matter of fact and law. The party one who has full knowledge of the pleadings and the contentions so raised since inception of the litigations just cannot be brushed aside at this stage. This is without expressing anything on the merits of the matter and by keeping all points open, the Petitioners/Applicants rights to contest the matter and issues, we are inclined to accept. The Respondents will be given full opportunity on every aspect to deal with the proposed averments/amendments to raise their defences in a writ petition, including the ground of limitation, delay and/or laches, if any. 9. The provisions of the Act in question itself provide for a restoration of possession, if taken illegally, as alleged. The Corporation not able to utilise the property for school since 1963. It is the Petitioners case since inception that the disputed land is not validly designated for school under the Bombay Town Planning Scheme and the Respondent/Corporation took possession of the disputed land unauthorisedly and without following the due procedure of law. The background of giving the undertaking also cannot be overlooked. It is the Petitioners case since inception that the disputed land is not validly designated for school under the Bombay Town Planning Scheme and the Respondent/Corporation took possession of the disputed land unauthorisedly and without following the due procedure of law. The background of giving the undertaking also cannot be overlooked. To raise such pleas and/or related averments, therefore, just cannot be denied at this stage in view of liberty granted by the Honourable Supreme Court permitting the Petitioners to move to the High Court for such amendment. The elaboration of provisions of laws involved, cannot cause injustice and hardship to the parties, so also the elaboration of existing facts on record. We are, therefore, inclined to grant the chamber summons by keeping all points open on all counts for the respective Respondents to raise appropriate defences and permitting them to amend the respective pleadings and/or to file the additional supporting documents, if any. 10. As the submission is made by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, that this proposed amendment would change the nature of the basic prayer so raised in the writ petition being, as alleged, inconsistent and contrary to the main prayer, we are inclined to keep all points open. 11. The Apex Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu & anr, (2002 (4) ALL MR 866), while dealing with the provisions of CPC, Order 6, Rule 17, with regard to the doctrine of relation back in the context of amendment of pleadings though in a matter of Suit, but as relevant, is reproduced as under:- “10. As amendment once incorporate relates back to the date of the suit. However, the doctrine of relation back in the context of amendment of pleadings is not once of universal application and in appropriate cases the Court is competent while permitting an amendment to direct that the amendment permitted by it shall not relate back to the date of the suit and to the extent permitted by it shall be deemed to have been brought before the Court on the date on which the application seeking the amendment was filed (See observations in Siddalingamma and another v. Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561 ).” 12. We are inclined to observe that though the principle of grant of amendment as contemplated in CPC and as referred above, cannot be overlooked, but so also the scope and power of writ Court, pending the writ petition, to grant such amendment. Mere delay cannot be the ground for refusing to grant such amendment. [Sampath Kumar (supra).] The amendment can be granted at any stage of the proceedings. There is no concept of “trial” in writ proceedings. The final hearing is yet to begin. The amended averments are relevant for final adjudication of the issues. No prejudice would cause if full opportunity is given to the other side to defend the case. We are inclined to exercise our discretion in giving equal an opportunity to all the concerned. This is also on the foundation that the grant of amendment itself cannot be read and means to granting of the reliefs so prayed in the proposed amendment. 13. The submission of the counsel appearing for the occupants/tenants that the whole project is halted because of constantly using such delay tactics and, therefore, such amendment should not be granted, in our view, is also not acceptable. The pendency of writ petition and the Suit and/or the respective orders so passed, in no way, are the sufficient reason to deny such amendment. The parties are at liberty to expedite the matters by making an appropriate applications. However, we are inclined to accept the submission that the writ petition requires early hearing which we are inclined to grant. Hearing of the writ petition is accordingly expedited and be placed for final hearing. We are not inclined to grant prayer clause (b) at this stage of the proceedings. However, liberty is granted to take out an appropriate application for prayer clause (b). 14. In the result, the following order: ORDER (I) Chamber Summons is allowed in terms of prayer (a) by keeping all points open on all counts. (II) The Applicants to carry out amendment within two week. (III) The Respondents to file additional affidavit and supporting documents within four weeks thereafter. (IV) Hearing of the writ petition is expedited and the writ petition be placed for direction after three weeks. (V) The learned senior counsel appearing for Respondents submitted to grant stay of this order that we pronounced today in Court. (III) The Respondents to file additional affidavit and supporting documents within four weeks thereafter. (IV) Hearing of the writ petition is expedited and the writ petition be placed for direction after three weeks. (V) The learned senior counsel appearing for Respondents submitted to grant stay of this order that we pronounced today in Court. Considering the facts and circumstances and the reason so mentioned, there is no case made out to stay the order of amendment so granted. Therefore, stay is refused.