( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 316 OF 2006 1. Suryabhan Tulshiram Girme 2. Ajay Suryabhan Girme 3. Vaibhav Suryabhan Girme R/o Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Anusayabai Tulshiram Girme 2. Tulshiram Karu Girme 3. Anupam Walmik Katkade R/o Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.P. Shah, advocate holding for Mr. Pushkar Shendurnikar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh S. Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the respondent No. 1. Mr. R.R. Imale, advocate for respondent No.2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 12th January, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge order rendered by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge ( 2 ) (J.D.), Kopargaon, on 12-07-2005 whereby their application for amendment of the written statement was rejected. 3. Heard learned counsel. 4. The suit is pending since 2002. The suit is for partition and separate possession. The respondent No. 1 has sought separate share by way of partition, including the suit property shown at serial No. “C” being land Survey No. 175/1B. The petitioners are original defendants No. 1 to 4. They filed application for amendment of the written statement alleging that land Survey No. 175/1B is the self-acquired property of the defendant No. 1 which has been sold by him in favour of his daughters and, therefore, it cannot be subject matter of partition. They further submitted that land Survey No. 67/3 is also required to be included in the suit claim being the tenanted land of the joint Hindu family. 5. The amendment application was opposed by the ( 3 ) respondent No.1. The learned Civil Judge held that the application was filed at belated stage and that when the plaintiff had not claimed any share in Survey No. 67, it could not be included in the suit claim. The learned Civil Judge also held that the amendment application was outside the ambit of the relevant provisions i.e. Order- VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the application was rejected. 6. It is important to note that the land Survey No. 175/1B is already included in the claim clause and is allegedly alienated by the defendant No. 1. The purpose of the amendment was to bring on record the nature of alienation. It was further an attempt to show that the respondent No.2 – Tulsiram was the sole owner of the said land. It is well settled that the defendants can raise contradictory pleas in their defence. The mere fact that the application was filed at belated stage could not be the ground for rejection thereof. The case of the petitioners was that land survey No. 67 was a tenanted land and the tenancy was inherited by the parties and, therefore, they were joint ( 4 ) tenants. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application only because the amendment in the written statement was held as improper. The question is whether the amendment is just and necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute. This is the only criteria which could be applied in the given circumstances. 7. As stated before, the suit is old one and is pending disposal in view of interim stay granted by this Court. It is expedient and in the interest of justice to direct the trial Court to decide the suit within a give time-frame. The amendment will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff i.e. respondent No.1. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The amendment application be treated as allowed and the petitioners be allowed to carry out necessary amendment of the written statement. They shall amend the written statement within two weeks. The plaintiff be permitted to file rejoinder if necessary and that the issues may be framed/recasted if already framed, within period of two weeks thereafter. The trial Court shall expedite final hearing of the suit and shall complete the hearing ( 5 ) within period of six months and to decide the suit within period of eight months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 1st February, 2010. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp316-06