1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3733 OF 2009 Shri Sunil Bijraj Agrawal. PETITIONER. V E R S U S Shri Hariom Bijraj Agrawal. RESPONDENT Shri Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Kaldate, AGP for respondent no.2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 23rd JUNE, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 03.11.2008 passed by learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent for amendment of plaint. 2. Shri Mukul Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though an objection in respect of non joinder of necessary party is taken in the written statement itself and the issues were framed, the respondent had filed an application at belated stage. He therefore submits that the learned trial court has erred in allowing such application. Mr. Kulkarni further relied on the judgment of Apex Court in case of Vidyabai and 2 ors v/s Padmalatha and another reported in 2009 (2) SRJ 454 . 4. The suit is for partition between the two brothers that is plaintiff and defendant. In said suit, on notice being issued, written statement came to be filed by the present petitioner raising one of the ground regarding non joinder of necessary parties. It was contended by the petitioner that six sisters of plaintiff and the defendant were not joined as necessary party. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the issues were framed. It appears that subsequently an additional issue with respect of non joinder of necessary party i.e “Whether suit is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties ?” also came to be framed. Respondent thereafter filed an application for joining six sisters as party respondents. The said application is allowed. 5. No doubt, Apex Court in the case of Vidyabai and others has held that once a trial has commenced an application for amendment should not be allowed unless the court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter prior to commencement of trial. However, it is noticed that Apex Court has also held that commencement of trial has to be taken in a wider sence i.e framing of issues, recording of evidence etc. In the present case, though issues are framed, the parties are yet to come in the witness box. 6. In any way, application which is allowed is under order 3 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code and not under order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code. The perusal of provisions of order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C would reveals that the Court has a jurisdiction to implead a party at any stage in order to have effective and complete adjudication and settle all the question involved in the suit. The present suit is for partition. In order to completely and effectively settle all the disputes between the parties and also in order to avoid further multiplicity of litigation, it would be in the interest of justice that six sisters are on record. In that view of the matter, I do not find any serious illegality has been committed by the Trial Court so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Hence, rejected. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp3733.09