1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3317/2009 ( Suresh S. Khandalkar and another -: versus :- Enkath B. Charjan ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 06, 2009. Heard Smt. S.W. Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri K.S.Malokar, learned Counsel for respondent. Petitioner/defendant wanted to amend written statement by pointing out that a Will of Kalawati was discovered lateron. This amendment has been rejected by the trial Court by observing that the nature of defence undergoes change. It is further observed that it causes serious prejudice to the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that recording of evidence is yet to begin. The burden to prove defence is upon the petitioner / defendant and he is coming up with a document allegedly executed by deceased. The learned counsel for respondent / plaintiff has contended that the defence sought to be added by way of amendment is inconsistent with the defence taken in earlier litigation. The inconsistencies can be used at appropriate stage, but cannot be the reason to deny amendment. 2 The second contention is that, suit is being unnecessarily delayed. The anxiety expressed by the learned counsel can be taken care by expediting the matter. The impugned order dated 07.04.2009 is therefore, quashed and set aside. Petitioner is permitted to amend his written statement, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1500/- to the respondent / plaintiff by 07.12.2009. If the costs are so paid, the petitioner is permitted to amend his written statement. Leave to respondent / plaintiff to carry out consequential amendment thereafter. The proceedings in Special Civil Suit No. 171/2008 are expedited and the court below is directed to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31.08.2010. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.