1 WP 3760/2010 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3760 OF 2010 Subhadra Parshuram Chavan .. Petitioner V/s Janardhan Bali Jadhav .. Respondent Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep S. Jinsiwale for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 12TH JULY 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard both sides. 2. The respondent is the original plaintiff. He filed a suit against the petitioner and her husband Parshuram for a declaration that the petitioner was the owner of the property and for possession. The petitioner and her husband filed a joint written statement. Subsequently the husband of the petitioner died on 20th July 2007. After the death of her husband, the petitioner filed an application on 24th July 2009 for amendment of the written statement which was initially filed jointly by herself and her husband. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner sought to amend paragraph 7A to the written 2 WP 3760/2010 statement wherein it was contended that the petitioner’s husband had left behind him an illegitimate son by name Umesh born to him from Sunita, and Umesh was a necessary party to the suit. The suit was bad in law as Umesh was joined as party to the suit. By an order dated 6th January 2010 the application was rejected. That order is impugned in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment was necessary for decision of the suit. The suit itself was not maintainable in view of the fact that all the heirs of the deceased husband of the petitioner were not brought on record and therefore the amendment ought to have been allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Umesh, the alleged illegitimate son of the husband of the petitioner, had himself made an application for impleading him as a party to the suit claiming to be the heir of deceased Parshuram, the husband of the petitioner. That application was rejected by an order dated 16th April 2009. The application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner was nothing but an attempt to get over the earlier order passed by the Court rejecting application of Umesh for being joined as a 3 WP 3760/2010 party. There is considerable force in the submission of the counsel for the respondent. 5. In N.K. Mohd. Sulaiman Sahib v. N.C. Mohd. Ismail Saheb, AIR 1966 SC 792, the Supreme Court has held that in case a debtor is sued for recovery of the debt and he dies after institution of the suit and some person is brought on record as his heir or legal representative by the plaintiff after bonafide inquiry, the fact that all heirs have not been brought on record is not fatal to the suit. In the present case, the respondent on a bonafide inquiry thought that the petitioner was the only heir and did not bring on record any heir other than the present petitioner who was already on record. Even the Court has also rejected the contention of Umesh to bring him on record as an heir of the deceased husband of the petitioner. That order has become final. The petitioner therefore cannot be allowed to raise again the very contention that Umesh is a necessary party to the suit by an amendment. The trial Court committed no error in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Writ petition is accordingly rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)