1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6907 OF 2010 Arun D. Patil ..Petitioner. v. Babu A. Mali and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. V.B.Rajure, adv., for the petitioner. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 14th September, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No.24 of 2004 for possession of the suit property described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. Defendant had filed written statement contesting the suit and denying the claim of the plaintiff. Suit was decreed. Against that, defendant no.4 Daulu Patil filed Regular Civil Appeal No.241 of 2006. The present petitioner is a legal representative of the deceased defendant no.4 Daulu. On 25.3.2010 he filed application, Ex.43 before the appellate Court seeking amendment in the written statement, wherein he contended that the suit property was correctly described to some extent but the different portions within the gat number were not specified and, therefore, suit property is not properly described and on that ground, 2 suit is not tenable. The learned District Judge rejected the application holding that whatever plea was tried to be taken by the amendment is already there in the written statement and the question of law regarding the tenability of the suit can be argued and, therefore, there was no need to make amendment in the written statement. The learned District Judge also noted that the respondent, who is decree holder is pressing for early hearing of the appeal while the appellant was trying to prolong the matter. Taking into consideration the facts and nature of the proposed amendment in the written statement, I find that said amendment was not necessary and it was only an attempt to prolong the case. I find no illegality in the impugned order. 2 Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 3