ORDER : ALOK ARADHE, J. 1. Heard. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 17-11-2014 passed by the trial court by which the application for amendment of the plaint, has been rejected. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner had initially filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction on the strength of agreement of sale-deed dated 20-8-1996 and 27-12-1996. During pendency of the suit, one acre of the suit land was sold to defendant No. 5 vide registered sale deed dated 11-4-2002. The petitioner, thereupon filed an application for amendment of the plaint on 16-9-2014 by which the plaintiff sought the relief of declaration that the sale-deed executed during pendency of the suit, be declared as null and void. The plaintiff also sought the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 10-8-1996 and 27-12-1996. The trial court has rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that the same would tantamount to changing the nature of the suit. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Karsondas Thakkar Vs. Kiran Construction Co. and Others, (2008) 13 SCC 658 has held that if the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit, the same cannot be allowed. In the aforesaid case, the suit for specific performance of the contract was sought to be converted into a suit for declaration and the same was held to be impermissible in law. 4. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, the trial court has rightly rejected the application for amendment preferred by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the same would tantamount to changing the nature of the suit. The impugned order, therefore, neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [See: Jai Singh and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another (2010) 9 SCC 385 , and Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 ,] 5. The application for amendment, insofar as, it pertains to amendment in the relief clause, is rejected. [See: Jai Singh and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another (2010) 9 SCC 385 , and Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 ,] 5. The application for amendment, insofar as, it pertains to amendment in the relief clause, is rejected. However, the proposed amendment in respect of the remaining part i.e. lis pendens transferee, is allowed. In the result, the application for amendment is partly allowed. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. C.C. as per rules.