dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.5205 OF 2008 PETITION NO.5205 OF 2008 PETITION NO.5205 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2025 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.2025 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.2025 OF 2008 1.Shri Balu Shripati Kaspate & ors ...Petitioners Vs. 1. Smt.Bhimabai Dagdu Kaspate & ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Tejas Dande for the Petitioners. Mr.S.S.Salunke for the Respondents 1 and 2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 1st October, 2008. : 1st October, 2008. : 1st October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The challenge is to the impugned order whereby the petitioners/plaintiffs application under Order VI, Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was dismissed. The plaintiffs claim joint ownership in respect of the suit property and, therefore, sought declaration that they are absolute owner of the suit property and as being in possession further prayed that they should not be dispossessed by the defendants. Further declaration is also sought that the sale transaction in favour of defendant no.2 by defendant no.1 dated 1st September, 1987 be cancelled ( 2 ) and sought possession of some portion of the property from defendant no.2. There was no prayer for partition of the property between plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff nos. 2 to 7. The defendants/respondents are not concerned with the said partition even if any. Plaintiff no.1 has already adduced his evidence along with one witness. At this stage, amendment to the prayer for a partition of the property between the plaintiffs which is not material aspect to decide the suit as prayed. There is no material whatsoever to justify the reason which prevented the plaintiffs, inspite of due diligence, to place this material before commencement of the trial. No issue on the point of partition is framed. The effect of partition is not necessary for the plaintiffs to claim relief in the present suit. As observed, the trial is almost concluded. Such amendment, therefore, would prejudice the defendants. For the above reason, I see that no case is made out by the petitioners to interfere with the order passed by the trial court rejecting the amendment application in view of above reasons. 3. There is no question of multiplicity of judicial proceedings in the present case. There is no averment to the effect that why they could not introduce this ( 3 ) amendment inspite of alleged averments on record when the petitioners/plaintiffs have full knowledge of these aspects since the beginning of the suit itself. The petitioners, therefore, are disentitled to the reliefs as prayed. The learned Judge has rightly rejected the same. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. 3. In view of dismissal of petition, C.A. No.2025/2008 is also dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)