1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5320/2010. (Babasaheb s/o Bhagwanrao Baglane Vs. Padmabai w/o Premraj Lunawat and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.CR Deshpande, Adv. for petitioner; Mr.PR Katneshwarkar, Adv. for Resp.Noi.1; Mr.GK Thigle, Adv. for Resp.No.3; Mr.MP Bangar, Adv. for Resp.Nos.3 and 4. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 4 th October, 2010. ... 1) Heard extensively. 2) In a chequered history of litigations, the defendant, at the stage of recording his evidence after filing affidavit-in- chief, has sought amendment to the written statement in Regular Civil Suit No.331/2005, below Exhibit-119, rejection thereof by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed, is questioned in this writ petition. 3) Mr.CR Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/defendant, canvassed that when the learned Joint Civil Judge SD could allow the plaintiff’s application below Exhibit-111 moved in November 2009 and allowed it on 11.11.2009, after 2 closure of plaintiff’s evidence dated 13.10.2009, same parameters need to have been adhered to while dealing with the application (Exhibit-119) moved by the defendant. 4) The second limb of contention is, the nature of amendment, that has been sought, is in consonance to the earlier pleadings and the subsequent pleadings at para 34. Para 34, according to leearned Counsel, calls for interference, because by way of proposed amendment, sought for, it changes the purport of the defendant’s contention and confusion is created. 5) The learned Judge, while dealing with the application was conscious of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Vidyabai and Ors. Vs. Padmalatha and Anr. - 2009 (1) ALL.M.R. 471, wherein Apex Court has cautioned to entertain the amendment application after evidence. In support of Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the learned Judge observed, while passing the orders in Exhibit-111, dated 11.11.2009, it was not brought to the notice and consequently said orders are passed. Before this Court, there is nothing on record to indicate that the order below Exhibit-111 in RCS No.331/2005 are questioned by the aggrieved defendant in 3 part before this Court. 6) Now comes the grievance of the defendant that amendment is inconsequential in nature, reading the pleadings referred above. The learned Judge has dealt with the same, pointing that the pleadings as a whole will have to be considered and not a stray statement from particular paragraph will be extracted. The learned Judge has also observed that mess can also be resolved by getting the property measured. That stage has not come into existence. Rejection of the application by the learned Judge, in the set of above facts, is in tune to the dictum of the Apex Court and the settled principles of law, need not be questioned. The order calls no interference 7) Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/