1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1711 OF 2009 (Taharabi w/o Madar Sayed and others vs. Mohabatbi w/o Ismail Sheikh and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.S.S.Shinde, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.K.Kulkarni, Adv. for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. ... CORAM: R.K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE:28/7/2010 1. This writ petition challenges order dt.9.9.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tuljapur, allowing application Exh.126 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.1/2003. 2. Notice in this matter was issued on 24.3.2009 and the proceedings of the trial Court are stayed. Shri K. K. Kulkarni, learned Counsel, appears for respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the amendment is time barred and it is highly belated as it is filed after the parties have filed a Purshis, closing the evidence of their side. He submits that the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application for amendment. He further submits that the suit, as it stands without amendment, was simplicitor for permanent injunction and when the plaintiff has realized that he is not in possession of the property, the application has been filed for amendment, claiming the relief of possession. The trial Court ought not to have allowed the amendment application and should have seen that it is barred by limitation. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the question, whether the amendment is barred by limitation or not, will have to be gone into by the trial Court upon framing such issue in view of the 3 decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 699 ( Ragu Thilak D.John v. S.Rayappan and others). He submits that merely because amendment has been allowed, it does not mean that the claim of the plaintiff for possession has been allowed. 5. Without going into the rival contentions raised by the parties, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the order impugned in this petition, at this stage. However, it will be open for the petitioner to file its additional written statement, without prejudice to her right to challenge this order, allowing the application for amendment, in the event if the ultimate decision in the suit goes against the petitioner. With these observations, the present writ petition is dismissed. (R.K.DESHPANDE) JUDGE agp/1711-09wp