(1) WP. 5710.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5710 OF 2010 Anita Shirish Gite .. Petitioner VERSUS Raghnuath Yankoji Ghuge and others .. Respondents ... Mr. M.V. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the respondent nos. 3 to 5, 8 and 11. Mr. D.K. Khivesara, Advocate for the respondent no.7 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 12TH AUGUST, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard counsel. 2. The petitioner’s challenge is to rejection of her written statement exhibit 174 by impugned order dated 21.3.2009. 3. The petitioner is original defendant no.5 in the suit (R.C.S. 176 of 1997). The suit is filed by the respondent no.1 for partition and separate (2) WP. 5710.2010 possession. In that suit, the original defendant nos.2 to 6, including the present petitioner, filed written statement vide exhibit no.49. In that written statement, there appears certain admission to the effect that the petitioner had relinquished her rights being a married woman. At later stage of the trial, the petitioner found it inconvenient to continue with such statement made in the earlier written statement exhibit-49 and, therefore, filed separate written statement vide exhibit 174 explaining her stance. The application was moved by the original defendant no.3 vide exhibit 176 to discard the subsequent written statement of the petitioner. The trial Court allowed the application and discarded the subsequent written statement exhibit-174 filed by the petitioner 4. Mr. Patil would submit that the earlier written statement was allegedly not at all filed by the petitioner and that she had not engaged the Advocate who drafted the written statement. He contended that the previous written statement exhibit (3) WP. 5710.2010 49 was filed at the behest of the original defendant no.3 and that it was not signed by the present petitioner. 5. A party cannot file separate written statement, time and again, and when a joint written statement is placed on record, it cannot be abandoned by an individual party, unless it is demonstrated that such party did not engage counsel to draft the written statement and did not sign the same or that such party was misled by playing fraud or there was impersonation of the said party. There is no prima facie evidence to indicate impersonation of the petitioner nor any evidence appears to have been adduced to show that she was subjected to fraud when she filed earlier written statement alongwith the other contesting defendants. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to explain the admission and demonstrate that the admission was given at the instance of the other defendants and really there was no relinquishment of her rights. For, it is always permissible to explain the admission and the (4) WP. 5710.2010 petitioner may adduce necessary evidence in support of her subsequent contention. 6. Considering the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is not perverse or arbitrary. No interference is called for. Petition disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp