wp3091.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.3091/2011 Vitthal Sakharam Dupare -vs- Tarabai Prabhakar Thakare and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri V. B. Palorkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 14/07/2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 17/02/2011 passed by the learned 7th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yavatmal, by which order the application for amendment of the written statement came to be rejected. The rejection of the amendment is inter alia on two grounds viz. that the same is belated and that the reasons, why the said amendment could not be moved earlier, have not been mentioned in the application and, therefore, they do not satisfy the requirements of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. A perusal of the proposed amendment inter alia discloses that the petitioner in the written statement wanted to aver that there are other properties of his father and the father of the original plaintiff which properties have not been made the subject matter of the suit. However, significantly the description of the properties or their location has not been wp3091.11.odt 2/2 mentioned in the paragraph, which is proposed to be added to the written statement. In so far as the other paragraph, which the petitioner wanted to add to the written statement, the petitioner has averred in the said paragraph that both the plaintiffs have got married prior to the year 1994. Even considering the amendments proposed, in my view, the same are totally unnecessary and the trial Court is right in holding that the application has been filed merely to prolong the proceedings. In that view of the matter, no fault could be found with the order of the trial Court. Hence, no interference is called for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE KHUNTE