The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal approach towards amendment applications and the interpretation of procedural rules in the context of the plaintiffs' underlying intention.

Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.

Present Letters Patent Appeal takes exception to the order passed by Hon'ble learned Single Judge on 15-10-2012 in Writ Petition No. 2290 of 2012, whereunder the appellants-plaintiffs' challenge to the rejection, of their application (Exh. 29) for amendment in Regular Civil Suit No. 916 of 2008, vide order dated 2-2-2012 on the file of the 17th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad, has failed.

2. Facts canvassed leading to the Letters Patent Appeal are worthwhile to be briefly referred to as, The appellants who are plaintiffs in said R.C.S. No. 916 of 2008, had entered into an agreement of purchase, with the respondent-original defendant in respect of plot of land bearing No. 83, CTS No. 12369, admeasuring 285 square meter, situated at Bassaye Nagar, Aurangabad for a total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-, on 4-7-2008 under a notarized document.

3. The plaintiffs had paid to the respondent, Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash and another lakh by drawing a cheque bearing No. 626688 on Vijaya Bank. Out of the total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-, balance amount of Rs. 28,00,000/- was agreed to be paid on or before 3-11-2008 by which date registration of the sale deed was to take place. Expenses over taxes and registration upto execution of sale deed, were to be borne by the defendant.

4. Thereafter, on 13-8-2008, plaintiffs gave a proclamation in Marathi daily "Sakal", disclosing their intention to purchase said land plot and inviting objections to the same, if any.

5. Unexpectedly for the plaintiffs, the owner-defendant himself raised objection and purported to deny the transaction. He further purported to deny the receipt of amount by cash as well as under the cheque.

6. Thereupon, the plaintiffs had given a notice to the owner-defendant through Advocate on 28-8-2008, calling upon him to execute the sale deed and communicating their willingness to complete the transaction.

7. Sometime later, it was learnt by the appellants-plaintiffs that the respondent is in the process of entering into development agreement with a developer/contractor. Looking at that the defendant is trying to deal with the property under the transaction between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the plaintiffs instituted a suit (RCS No. 916/2008) to prohibit the defendant from entering into transaction or dealing with the property and also sought temporary injunction with a prospect to secure it.

8. The suit came to be resisted by the defendant. The defendants in their written statement had objected to not availing proper remedy.

9. The plaintiffs realized that relief in the form in which it had been sought in the suit, is not going to serve their purpose and as such, applied to the Court vide Exhibit 27, seeking leave to withdraw the suit with permission to institute a proper suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division.

10. Said application was resisted by the defendant, contending that the application is untenable since being affected by Order II, Rule 2 and Order XXIII, Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application being an afterthought does not deserve to be entertained.

11. Learned Trial Judge has observed that in the plaint itself, the plaintiffs have referred to that they are confused/jumbled as to what remedy should be adopted and had filed the instant suit. The learned Judge further considered that the plaintiffs had been represented by a Counsel and as such, should be deemed to be aware as to reliefs which ought to be sought. The learned Judge considered that the plaint paragraph 3 is an indication of intention of the plaintiffs to relinquish other reliefs and moreover, since no leave had been obtained for keeping back relief of specific performance, it weakens the strength of the application.

12. The learned Judge was not satisfied about there being any formal defect in the suit, or about sufficiency of grounds to allow the application. The omission to claim relief without leave of the Court was consid