SM 1 12.WP.9833.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9833 OF 2011 Shri. Kisan Nandram Ghumare and others ....Petitioners. Versus Shri. Bhausaheb Kisan Ghumare and others ....Respondents. ____________ Mr. Sachin Gite for the Petitioners. CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. P.C.: The above petition takes exception to the order dated 12th October, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge-7, Nashik in Appeal Exhibit-19 in Civil Appeal No. 143 of 2010, came to be rejected. The petitioner is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 116 of 2005 which was filed for partition and separate possession by the respondents herein who are the defendants. The said suit had been decreed on 30th June, 2010. It is the case of the petitioner that after the decree came be to passed in the said suit, he acquired information that there is one more property being a Row House which was not included in the suit properties when the suit for partition was filed. The said application was resisted by the original plaintiff,s i.e., the respondents herein by contending that SM 2 12.WP.9833.11 the said property which is sought to be included by way of amendment is the self acquired property of the defendant no. 2 for which he has taken loan from HDFC. The trial court on the basis of the aforesaid facts held that the said application ought to have been filed when the suit was pending and rejected the same. The trial court was of the view that, allowing the amendment would result in a fresh controversy as to whether the said property was a joint family property or self acquired property. 2. In my view, the reasons mentioned by the trial court in the impugned order are unexceptional as in the context of the said objections. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 3. The reliance was sought to be placed on the judgment in the case of NTPC Limited V/s. Reliance Industries Limited reported in 2009 (4) Bom. C.R. 164. The issue in the said judgment was as regards the executability of the decree and it is in the said context that the learned Judge held that the amendment was required to be granted. The learned counsel also relied upon SM 3 12.WP.9833.11 the judgment of single judge in the case of Baburao Deshmukh V/s. Maharashtra Insecticides Ltd. and others reported in 2004 (3) Civil LJ 274. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the reliance placed on the said judgments is misplaced. 4. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction was made out. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)