1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1211 OF 2010 Kalgonda Raigonda Patil Petitioner versus Sau.Meenakshi Vangonda Patil Respondent Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar for petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd February 2010 PC : 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. The respondent filed a suit for perpetual injunction. An application for amendment of the plaint was made for incorporating a relief of partition and separate possession. By the impugned order the said application has been allowed and the respondent-plaintiff has been permitted to amend the plaint for incorporating the relief of partition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-plaintiff and two others had filed earlier suit for partition being Regular Civil Suit No.62 of 1982 and the suit was dismissed for non prosecution. He submitted that instead of applying for restoration of the said suit, by back door method, now the respondent wants to seek a decree for partition. He submitted that the amendment was not at all bona 2 fide and the same ought to have been rejected. He also invited my attention to various observations of the Trial Court while allowing the amendment. He submitted that such observations could not have made. 3. A perusal of the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.62 of 1982 shows that the present respondent-plaintiff was second plaintiff in the said suit and she was a minor represented by guardian. By the impugned order the respondent has been permitted to claim partition. It is obvious that even if the amendment is allowed, all the defences of the petitioner including the defence of bar of limitation as well as maintainability of the prayer for partition in view of dismissal of the earlier suit always remain open. The petitioner can urge those contentions in the additional written statement. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent ought to have filed a separate suit for partition. Precisely to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, the amendment has been allowed. No fault can be found with the impugned order. The writ petition is rejected. However, all contentions of the petitioner including the contention of bar of limitation and maintainability of the prayer for partition are expressly kept open. If the petitioner has not filed additional written statement, he shall do so within eight weeks from today. (A.S.OKA, J.)