1 wp1894.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1894 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.R. Nikam, advocate for the petitioners. 1. Learned Counsel contends that when suit was filed for declaration alleging oral partition, subsequent amendment therein to incorporate the prayer for decree for partition and separate possession in the alternative, changes the nature of suit. 2. After hearing learned Counsel, I find that the plaint allegations of oral partition is not accepted by the petitioner-defendant. Therefore, by way of abundant precaution the prayer for decree for partition by metes and bounds has been made. Nature of suit does not undergo any change. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 17.03.2011 gas/wp1894.11