1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5474 OF 2006. Sau.Kamalabai Shivaji Gulve and others ... Petitioners. Versus Tukaram Sopan Shinde and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.Mukul Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.D.V.Tele, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6. Mr.S.T.Ghute, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 29.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The short point involved in the 2 petition is whether the rejection of the application (Exh.57) in suit bearing (RCS No. 63/2004), by the impugned order dated 6.6.2000, is improper arbitrary and liable to be interfered with. The amendment application was moved by the petitioners who are original defendants. The amendment sought by them was of explanatory nature in the sense it was explained that petitioner No.l Kamlabai (original defendant No. 1) is cousin of Ramesh, referred in the pedigree table and not his real sister. The petitioners also sought deletion of the word "possession" which occurred after the word "actual". The nature of amendment was rather formal and intended to explain the real facts. The learned Civil Judge observed : "I am aware of the fact that if the proposed amendment would not make any change in the nature and character of the suit, in the event, the amendment needs to be allowed as per Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. at any stage." Inspite of such awareness, the amendment 3 application was rejected for the reason that a specific pedigree of the family is enumerated in the plaint and, therefore, the amendment was likely to change the nature of the suit. It is explicit that the learned Civil Judge did not appreciate the legal purport of Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. There appears clear contradictions in the observation of the learned Civil Judge. For, at one place it has been held that the proposed amendment would not make any change in the nature and character of the suit, whereas at another place such observations is given go-by. It is further observed by the learned Civil Judge that it is for the defendant to prove the fact that the defendant No.1 is not the real sister of said Ramesh S/o Vishwambar. That is why the amendment was sought. The impugned order goes to show that non-application of judicial mind to the nature of amendment and the legal aspects of the matter. The impugned order is, therefore, unsustainable being perverse. 3. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The amendment 4 application stands allowed and the petitioners are directed to carry out the amendment within a period of two (2) weeks after the appearance in the trial Court. The petitioners be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and expeditious disposal of the suit be undertaken without denying the fair opportunity to both the sides. The parties to appear before the trial Court on 20.7.2009. Rule made absolute accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp547406