ssm sm sm 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. 448 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 448 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 448 OF 2008 Ramchandra Ganpati Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Aba Dhondi Patil (Since deceased through his L.Rs.) Dinkar Aba Patil & Ors. ...Respondents. ALONG ALONG ALONG WITH WITH WITH WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 449 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 449 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 449 OF 2008 Ramchandra Ganpati Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Yeshwant Babu Kolge (Since deceased through his L.Rs.) Laxmibai Yeshwant Kolge & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the Petitioners. Mr.Prasad Kulkarni i/by Mr.P.S.Dani for Respondent Nos.1A to 6. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 12th November, 2008. : 12th November, 2008. : 12th November, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioners have challenged the orders dated 5/10/2007 whereby, their Application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "C.P.C.") (to add para 12-A in the written statement) ( 2 ) at the stage of hearing of the Appeal was rejected rightly, so as in the application, filed for the amendment, there is no reason mentioned to justify to move such application at this stage of the proceedings specially when those facts as averred in para 12A are well within the knowledge of the Petitioners-Defendants. 2. The suits are already decreed on 08/09/2006. The Appeals against the same are pending. These amendment applications are dated 18/12/2006. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners basically submits that the amendment of such nature would not affect the rights already created in favour of the Respondents. It is just clarificatory nature and the material and documents are already on record with regard to the tenancy issue. Admittedly, there was no such issue framed involving the tenancy Act however, there is a clear finding given at page 32 para 7 in Regular Civil Suit No.66 of 2002 by the Trial Court observing as under:- . "It is admitted fact that suit property belongs to the Trust and it is also governed by the Sec. 88-C of the Tenancy Act." ( 3 ) 3. The same position is in other suit, as per the advocate for the Petitioners. Basic facts are similar in both the matters. 4. These findings read with documents, are already part of the record. There is no question now to grant such applications to bring alleged more material on record after such delayed stage as dealt in the present matters. The submission that the Petitioners did not lead any evidence in support of this averments is also opposed, rightly, only on the ground of delay. 5. It is settled that the amendment if goes to the root of the matter and if sufficient reason is shown, even at the deleted stage, such can be granted. This is not the case here. The trial itself had proceeded on the basis of Written statement as verified. The Judgment is also based upon the evidence, as well as, the material placed by the parties. However, the Petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds as available based upon the reasoning, as well as, material part of the record. 6. The Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. ( 4 ) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)