1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5008 OF 2009 Shri Shankar Vithoba Babar. .. Petitioner Vs Shri Yashwant Bachyaba Babar, since deceased through his heirs & Lrs. Shri Balkrishna Yashwant Babar & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Dilip Bodake for the Petitioner. Shri R.A. Thorat for Respondent Nos.2-A to 2-D, 3 and 5. Shri Rupesh K. Bobade for Respondent No.4. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff. The Petitioner made an application for amendment of the plaint. The said application was partly allowed by an order dated 6th March, 2009. The application was rejected to the extent to which the Petitioner sought permission to add paragraph 6A in the Plaint. 2. By the proposed Paragraph 6A, the Petitioner was desirous of referring to a suit filed in the year 2000 by the original Defendant against him in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Wai. In Paragraph 6A, it is alleged that the written statement filed by the Petitioner in the said suit was not read over to him and, therefore, the Petitioner is not accepting the written statement. It is further stated that the said suit filed by the 2 Defendant stands abated. In Paragraph 6A, another contention sought to be raised is that the Written Statement filed by the Petitioner himself in the said suit is not acceptable to him and he wants to cancel the same as he is not accepting the contents of the said Written Statement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is always entitled to say that a particular statement made by him in his own written statement is incorrect. He submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to take inconsistent stands and he can be always cross- examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872. He, therefore, submitted that, that part of the amendment ought to have been allowed. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. In the proposed Paragraph 6A, the Petitioner has admitted that he has filed his own Written Statement in the suit filed by the Respondent. The Petitioner wants to say that he has cancelled the said Written Statement as he is not accepting the correctness thereof. In short, the Petitioner wants to say that contents of his own Written Statement are not correct. The Petitioner could not have raised such a contention even in the said suit in which the Written Statement has been filed. It is obvious that the proposed amendment in the form of Paragraph 6A not only lacks bona fides but it is mala fide and the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the said amendment. No case for interference is made out. However, this is a fit case where the Petitioner 3 should be ordered to pay costs of this Writ Petition. 5. The Writ Petition is rejected. The Petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.2,500/- to Kirtikar Library, High Court, Bombay. (A.S.OKA, J) ash