1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5949 OF 2009 Balkrishna Ramchandra Gaikwad ...Petitioner vs. Ranganath Tukaram Gaikwad & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Sachin Dhakephalkar for the petitioner Mr.Ajay Patil for respondent nos.2 to 7 Ms Chandana Salgaonkar for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 28, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the first defendant in a suit for partition filed by the first respondent. By the order impugned, the first respondent has been permitted to amend the plaint for adding certain properties in the list of suit properties. 2 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the plaint the respondent no.1 has contended that the property which is sought to be added was the self acquired property but in the application for amendment it is contended that it is a joint family property. He, therefore, submitted that such amendment ought not to have permitted. 2 3 I have considered the submissions. By the impugned order, the original plaintiff has been permitted to carry out amendment to the list of the suit properties. The question of the status of the the suit properties or the question whether the said properties can be subjected to partition are required to be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit. Merely because, the amendment is allowed, it cannot be said that the contention of the 1 st respondent in the proposed amendment is accepted. The petitioner can always file an additional written statement raising appropriate contentions. 4 Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE