Heard Mr. Jaydeep Deo, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Sneha Bhange, learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. The challenge in this Petition is to order dated 24th March, 2017 by which the learned trial Judge has rejected the Petitioner's application for amendment of the Plaint. Mr. Deo submits that the amendment was only in respect of the description of the suit premises. He submits that the amendment was necessary as matter of abundant caution so that in future there should arise no difficulties in so far as the identification of the suit properties is concerned. He submits that the amendment of this nature ought to have been allowed considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. Ram Kishan (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 89. Therefore he submits that the impugned order warrants interference.

3. Ms. Bhange, learned counsel for Respondents point out that the application for amendment was made almost six and half years after the institution of the suit. No steps are taken to amend the Plaint, even though the issue as regards incorrect description of the premises was substantially raised by the Respondents in written statement. She su