JUDGMENT :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner assails the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 4 July 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pune, whereby the substantive part of the prayer for amendment in the plaint in SCS No.1467 of 2023 instituted by the Petitioner, came to be rejected.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts can be stated, as under :

3.1 The Petitioner claimed that he was in the occupation of two rooms, admeasuring 300 sq.ft. (the demised premises) in an old house, situated at CTS No.1164, Nana Peth, Pune (the suit premises). There were in all six tenants in the various portions of the demised premises. Late Sadashiv Rajaram Mithapelli was the original landlord. After the demise of the original landlord, Defendant Nos.4 to 9 became the landlord and the owner of the demised premises. Defendant No.3, a partnership firm, which is engaged in the business of builders and developers, undertook the development of the suit premises. Multiple Development Agreements were executed in favour of Defendant No.3 by the owners of the suit premises.

3.2 The Plaintiff claimed, Defendant No.3 also approached the Plaintiff with an offer to provide 600 sq.ft. carpet area, which was double the area of the demised premises, without any monetary consideration, in lieu of the surrender of the demised premises to the Plaintiff. Defendant No.3 also agreed to provide transit rent @ Rs.10,000/- per month, from the date of delivery of the possession of the demised premises till the completion of the new building.

3.3 Accordingly, on 30 November 2021, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) came to be executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.3, incorporating all the aforesaid terms. It is the claim of the Plaintiff that Defendant No.3 reneged from its promises. Upon demand of the transit rent, as agreed, Vishal G. Dhanwade – Defendant No.3(a) flatly refused to pay the transit rent and asserted that a residential unit of 330 sq.ft. only, would be provided to the Plaintiff and if the Plaintiff wanted more area, he should pay an amount of Rs.32 Lakhs.

3.4 It further transpired that, Defendant No.3 had changed the pages of the MOU and forged the said MOU by replacing page Nos.3 and 4. Thus, asserting that the MOU dated 30 November 2021, propounded by Defendant No.3 was forged and fabricated and on the basis of false and forged documents, Defendant No.3 had obtained the permission for development, far in excess of the entitlement for development, the Plaintiff prayed for declaration that the building permission obtained by Defendant No.3 from Defendant Nos.1 and 2 was illegal, null and void, and not binding on the Plaintiff as it was based on false and forged documents and deliberate misrepresentation. The consequential reliefs of injunction to restrain Defendant No.3 from carrying out further construction and recovery of the arrears of transit rent @ 10,000/- p.m. along with interest, and compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs, were also sought

3.5 After the institution of the suit, it appears that the Plaintiff filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. By an order dated 28 November 2024, the said application came to be rejected opining, inter alia, that the Plaintiff could seek additional area and alternative prayer for specific performance of the purported MOU by filing an application for amendment.

3.6 Thereupon, the Plaintiff took out instant application for amendment in the plaint seeking, inter alia, the prayer for specific performance of the purported MOU and a direction to Defendant No.3 to execute a registered deed, providing 600 sq.ft. flat / residential unit as per the MOU dated 30 November 2021 in the newly constru