* 1 * W.P. 3511.2005 29.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3511 OF 2005 Bapusaheb Pandurang Patil and Ors. ......Petitioners V/S. Indubai Jayprakash Patil ......Respondent ­­­ Mr. N.J. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. CORAM : ­ SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. 29 September, 2010. P.C. :­ 1. This writ petition filed under Article 227 Constitution of India is for quashing of the order dated 12th August, 2004 passed by IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangli rejecting the * 2 * W.P. 3511.2005 29.9.2010 application of the petitioner for amendment of their written statement filed in Special Civil Suit No.60 of 1999. The respondent to the petition is not present despite service. 2. The petitioners and the respondent are heirs and legal representatives of one Anandrao who died in the year 1991. Petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased son of Anandrao and the respondent is the daughter of Anandrao. On 15th February, 1999 the respondent filed suit for partition of the properties consisting of a residential house and agricultural lands at Gat No. 1964, 539 and 954. These properties had been self acquired by Anandrao. The respondent claims one­half share in the properties. The petitioners filed their written statement dated 16th February, 2000 contending on merit that deceased Anandrao had during his lifetime i.e. on 6th July 1985 transferred the agricultural land at Gat No.1115 to petitioners no.1, petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no.3. The written statement also states that deceased Anandrao during his lifetime i.e. on 17th April, 1955 transferred the agricultural land at Gat nos.537 and 295 in favour * 3 * W.P. 3511.2005 29.9.2010 of his son Pandurang. Similarly, Anandrao had distributed amongst respondents no.1 to 3 agricultural land at Gat No.1115 on 6th July 1985. The written statement also claimed that the lands at Gat nos. 1138 and 2143 had been equally distributed by Pandurang amongst his three sons i.e. respondents no.1 to 3. Therefore, according to the petitioners there was no property left for partition on the death of Anandrao. 3. More than four years after filing of the written statement, the petitioners filed application dated 29th April, 2004 for its amendment. The application states that in the written statement some material facts had remained to be included through inadvertence. The facts that were sought to be added to the written statement by way of an amendment related to sale of certain properties by Anandrao in the years 1976, 1978 and 1989. He is alleged to have sold the properties at Gat No.1626 and Gat No.1999 to third parties. These properties do not form part of the properties sought to be partitioned by the respondent. After bringing the fact as regards the sale on record, the petitioners * 4 * W.P. 3511.2005 29.9.2010 seek to contend that the purchasers of these three properties having been not impleaded to the suit, and the suit is not maintainable for non­joinder of necessary parties. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]