1 wp-10399.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10399 OF 2011 Suresh Dhondu Ghanekar and anr. : Petitioners versus Bhiku Balu Itape and ors. : Respondents. Mr. D S Sapkale for the Petitioners. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 22nd December 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 3/10/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Guhagar by which order the Application for amendment of the Written Statement filed by the Respondents herein, who are the Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 2008 came to be allowed. 2 The Petitioners herein are the original Plaintiffs, who have filed the said Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 2008 for permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from disturbing the possession of the Petitioners over the suit land. It is the claim of the Petitioners that their predecessor has become owner by virtue of the order passed under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and thereafter issuance of certificate under Section 32M of the said Act. 2 wp-10399.11.sxw 4 Per contra, it is the case of the Defendants that their predecessors were protected tenant. In the said suit, the Defendants had filed their Written Statement wherein the said case of theirs is set out. The application for amendment was moved to incorporated pleadings as regards revenue proceedings and the proceedings which are going on in the Tenancy Court between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, the said Application as indicated above has been allowed by the impugned order. 5 The gist of the reasoning of the trial Court is that from the documents filed by the Plaintiff vide Exhibit 109, it can be seen that the Defendants had filed an Appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer on 17/1/2005 in respect of the issue of tenancy between the parties. From the said documents filed by the Plaintiffs it can be seen that there was an issue between the parties as regards the Defendants being protected tenants. Hence in view to settle the real controversy between the parties, the amendments were required to be allowed. In view of the delay that was caused in filing the Application, the trial Court has imposed costs of Rs.3,000/- on the Defendants. 6 It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners Shri Sapkale that the suit is simplicitor for possession, and therefore, the issue of tenancy is not material and what has to be seen is only the possession of the Plaintiffs. 3 wp-10399.11.sxw 7 Since in their defence, the Defendants have taken a plea that they are the protected tenants of the property in question, and since there is already material placed on record by the Plaintiffs themselves as regards the proceedings between the parties before the Sub Division Officer, in my view, the order of the trial Court allowing the amendments cannot be faulted with. For the delay in filing the said Application, the Plaintiffs have been adequately compensated by costs of Rs.3,000/- . The reasoning of the trial Court that the amendments were necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties, in my view, cannot be taken exception to. In that view of the matter, no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]