(1) WP 8230.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8230 OF 2009 Dinkar S/o B. Deshpande Age : 57 years, Occu.: Legal Practitioner, R/o Sabne Chawl, Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad Petitioner VERSUS Prakash S/o Panditrao Naik and others Respondents ..... Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M.D. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent no.1. None present for the respondent no.2 though served. Petition dismissed as against Resp. no.3 as per Court's order dt. 15.1.2010. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 12TH JANUARY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This Petition is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission inasmuch as the questions to be determined lies in a narrow compass. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved due to rejection of his application for amendment. The application was filed vide exhibit 73 in the Special Civil Suit (2) WP 8230.2009 no. 161 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division at Aurangabad. The respondent no.1 has filed the suit for recovery of compensation/damages on account of the alleged malicious prosecution of himself by the prosecuting agency on the alleged charges of accepting illegal gratification. He has been acquitted from the criminal case. He filed the suit against the present petitioner and others who were allegedly initiators of such malicious prosecution. 4. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the question regarding the existence of any oblique intention or malice while initiating the prosecution because that will be the question to be determined by the trial Court. 5. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is an Advocate and he gave statement to the effect that he was not paid any amount nor was engaged by the concerned party from whom the alleged gratification by way of two cheques of Rs.5000/- was received by the respondent no.1 (plaintiff). The petitioner filed application for amendment alleging that Officer (3) WP 8230.2009 from "M/s. Wokhardt Company Ltd." has approached him through the respondent no.1 (plaintiff) for consultation. He further wanted to clarify that the respondent no.1 (plaintiff) had taken away two blank forms of Vakalatnama from him with an assurance that he will obtain the necessary signature of the competent Officer of the said Company i.e. "M/s. Wokhardt Company Ltd.". The respondent no.1 has thereafter handed over those duly signed Vakalatnamas and had filled up the body writing in his own handwriting. The said Vakalatnamas were not traceable for years together but since they were found, the clarification was being made and the two original Vakalatnamas were being presented to the Court. 6. It is true that the petitioner had taken some inconsistent stand on earlier occasion regarding the reason for loss of the two Vakalatnamas. The purpose of producing the two Vakalatnamas in the Court is to demonstrate that the body writing was in the hand-writing of the respondent no.1 (plaintiff). In other words, the amendment is sought to show that the respondent no.1 himself had taken active part in (4) WP 8230.2009 obtaining necessary Vakilpatras from M/s. Wokhardt Company Ltd." The purpose is to show as to how the respondent no.1 was interested in the criminal case which he was to prosecute against the said Company and instead of prosecuting the criminal case, how he was helping the other side i.e. the accused. Considering the specific reason and the fact that the two Vakilpatras were made available immediately alongwith the amendment application, the amendment could not be regarded as unnecessary. The defendant is entitled to take inconsistent pleas. The amendment may be allowed if it is found to be necessary for effective and final adjudication of the matter. The discretionary power could have been used in favour of the petitioner when the amendment application was supported by the original Vakalatnamas presented by him. The trial Court seems to have taken a dogmatic view by rejecting the application. 7. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The amendment application be deemed as allowed and the petitioner be allowed to carry out the amendment within period of two weeks (5) WP 8230.2009 after the receipt of the copy of this order and thereafter the suit shall be proceeded on merits and be expeditiously decided. It is made clear that no opinion on merits of the issues involved in the suit is expressed. The interim stay is vacated. Petition disposed of. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp