wp11139.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.11139 OF 2010. Mahesh Prabhakar Mohite. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS Murlidhar Shekaba Mohite, and others. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for Petitioner. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 10th DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: 1. The petition takes exception to the order below Exh.92 dated 29th September, 2010 in R.C.S. NO.63 of 2005 passed by the learned Joint C.J.S.D., Osmanabad. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that upon perusal of the application filed for amendment to the written statement, wp11139.10 2 it is clear that the original defendant No.2 – respondent herein has not mentioned that in spite of due diligence he could not bring the matter in the written statement, which he now wishes to bring by way of amendment to written statement. He further submitted that earlier also application was filed by the respondent for amendment and this is second time application for amendment is filed with an intention to protract the hearing of the case. He further submitted that no explanation is given in the application as to why the said portion which the respondent wants to bring on record by way of amendment to written statement, was not inserted in the main written statement. He further submitted that if amendment is allowed to be effected, it will cause prejudice to the petitioners herein. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. wp11139.10 3 3. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it clearly appears that the amendment which the respondent wishes to bring to the written statement, is not totally inconsistent with the pleadings by the respondent in his written statement. The trial Court has also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Usha Balasahab Swami and others vs Kiran Appasao Swami and others (2007(5) Mh.L.J. 593) and observed that while interpreting provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 proviso, the Court must give liberal interpretation so as to put end to the controversy raised in the matter. The trial Court has also observed that the defendant is entitled to take inconsistent plea in the written statement by making application for amendment. The trial Court has considered the case in its entirety and arrived at the conclusion that if the amendment to the written statement is allowed, no prejudice wp11139.10 4 would be caused to the plaintiff and the proposed amendment is essential for determining the real controversy in between the parties in proper manner. 4. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on independent scrutiny, the view that since the application for amendment is brought at belated stage i.e. after commencement of trial, and therefore, the same should not be entertained, cannot be accepted in the facts of this case. The Court has to look into various aspects including – whether by way of allowing the amendment the Court can avoid multiplicity of litigation, whether the entire controversy can be resolved which is raised in the suit if the amendment is allowed, nature of the amendment if it is in consonance with the pleadings taken in the main written statement, in that case, the Court should be liberal in allowing the amendment. wp11139.10 5 In my opinion, viewed from any angle, the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view on the material brought on record. Even it is assumed for a moment that another view is possible, however, that is not the ground to interfere in the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If possible view is taken by the Court below, it is settled law that this Court should not interfere merely because another view is possible. 5. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ Petition stands dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*