 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5723/2006 1. Sou Nishabai Hariram Mahajan, aged 45 years, Occ. Household 3. Hariram Gulabchand Mahajan, aged 51 years, Occ. Service & agriculture both r/o Zokamwadi, Murtizapur, tq. Murtizapur, dist. Akola. .....PETITIONERS ...V E R S U S... Madhukar Nathalal Waza, aged adult, Occ. Barber, r/o Main Road, Kacchi Lane, Murtizapur, tq. Murtizapur,dist. Akola .....RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. L. H. Kothari, Advocate for petitioners. None for respondent, though served. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE:- 25 th MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. Notice to the respondent was served clearly indicating that the present petition would be finally disposed of at the admission stage. After service of the notice, Mr. Joshi and other Advocates had appeared, but they had withdrawn their power. Now, nobody appears for the respondent. Heard Mr. Kothari, Advocate for the petitioners and perused the impugned order and other relevant documents.  2. The petitioners/plaintiffs claim to be owners of the suit premises, situated at Murtizapur. According to them, the defendant was inducted as tenant and proceeding was filed before the Rent Controller seeking permission to issue quit notice. The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 90/1995 before the Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Murtizapur seeking possession of the suit premises on the ground that the respondent had denied the title of the petitioners and thereby he had forfeited the right of tenancy. The suit was defended by the respondent by filing written statement, on the basis of which several issues were framed in 1996. One of the issues is about relationship of landlord and tenant. The defendant/respondent filed application Exh.-70 on 20.09.2005 before the trial Court seeking amendment in the written statement. By the proposed amendment, he wanted to plead that in the revenue enquriy, the Collector had passed order that the land belongs to Government and the possession of the land be taken by the Government. According to him, in view of this order, necessary mutation entries had been taken and, therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs cannot continue with the suit for possession and,  therefore the suit is not tenable. The application was opposed. However, the learned trial Court, by the impugned order dated 01.03.2006 allowed the amendment on the ground that this amendment was necessary for disposal of the suit. That order is challenged in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that original issue no. 1 was about the title of the petitioners/plaintiffs but that issue was deleted by order dated 15.11.1996 because the suit was filed on the ground that the defendant was inducted as tenant of the plaintiffs and the only relevant issue was about the relationship of landlord and tenant. That order deleting issue no. 1 about title of the plaintiff was never challenged. He pointed out that on 21.10.2002, the defendant had filed another application Exh.-54 seeking amendment with intend to plead that the land belonged to the Government and the Collector and Government are necessary parties and the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. That application came to be rejected by order dated 17.12.2002. The  plaintiffs have already filed affidavits in examination-in-chief of the witnesses and their witnesses are to be cross-examined by the defendant. It is contended that even though the Collector had passed the order holding that the land belongs to the Government, that order is not final because the said order has been challenged in the revision application and that order has been stayed. In fact, the only relevant question, as far as the plaintiffs and defendant are concerned, is about relationship of landlord and tenant. If the plaintiffs succeed in proving that the defendant was inducted by them as a tenant in the suit premises, the defendant will be estoppoed from challenging the title of the plaintiffs on the property at the time of his induction in view of provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, if the Collector has passed the order against the present plaintiffs, that matter is between the Government and plaintiffs. The defendant cannot take benefit of that. It was never his case that he was inducted in the suit premises, which is a shop, by the Government. Therefore, the order passed by the Collector to resume the land or to take back possession of the land is irrelevant as far as the suit between the  plaintiffs and defendant is concerned. It appears that the defendant has been trying to plead irrelevant things by making amendment applications from time to time. The amendment sought by the defendant as per application Exh.-70 is unnecessary for the dispute in Regular Civil Suit No. 90/1995. The trial Court committed error in allowing that application. 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and application Exh.-70 filed by the defendant for amendment stands rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE kahale