1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1329 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1329 OF 2011 *** 1. This Court has already issued notice for final disposal. According I have heard Advocate Mr. J. R. Patil for the Petitioner, Advocate Shri Jaybhay for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Advocate Shri Navandar for Respondent No.2. 2. The suit is admittedly pending at the stage of hearing at Exhibit-5. The petitioner has filed the suit for recovery of possession on the basis of alleged title. His title has been denied by present Respondent Nos.1 and 3 and also by subsequent purchaser viz. Respondent No.2. They also point out in their written statement that had plaintiff been owner he would have definitely known the location of his property and, therefore, could have described boundaries also. After this objection in March, 1020 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1329 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. the petitioner/ plaintiff has moved application on 29th October, 2010 at Exhibit-34 seeking leave to amend. By amendment, he wanted to point out subsequent sales and also wanted to add the boundaries. By impugned order trial Court has allowed that application partially. The insertion of facts about subsequent sales has been allowed but then boundaries are not allowed to be added as those boundaries were well within knowledge of petitioner/ plaintiff at the time of institution of suit. 3. Shri Patil contends that as trial of the suit is yet to start the impugned order shows total non-application of mind and refusal to exercise the jurisdiction. 4. According to respective counsel for the Respondents, it is nothing but an attempt to fill in lacunae and it also takes away advantage which has accrued to them because of vague description of suit property in the 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1329 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. plaint. 5. Amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.Code do not permit amendment after trial had started if facts necessitating that amendment were well within knowledge of plaintiff. Here the trial is yet to start. Therefore, the bar contemplated by said provisions is not relevant. The other contentions that objections of Respondents are nothing but merit of the controversy which are not relevant, at this stage. Whether boundaries as described are correct or not or why the boundaries could not be placed on record when suit came to be filed, are the questions relevant for adjudication during trial. The Respondents can very well bring relevant material on record for this purpose. The impugned order dated 14th January, 2011 is, therefore, modified. Application at Exhibit-34 as filed is allowed in its entirety. Necessary amendment be 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1329 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. carried out in accordance with law before the trial Court. Liberty to Respondents to carry out consequential amendment thereafter. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:03/05/2011. ans/1329