(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11502 OF 2010 Kadu s/o. Radhaji Buchade, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bhendala, Taluka : Gangapur, .. Petitioners District : Aurangabad, (Original defendant and 3 others. nos.2 to 5) versus Vishwanath s/o. Yadavrao Buchade, Age : 69 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Gangapur, Taluka : Gangapur, .. Respondent District : Aurangabad. (Original plaintiff) ....................... Mr. V.N. Damle, Advocate, holding for Mr. H.F. Pawar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28TH MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.N. Damle, holding for Adv. Mr. H.F. Pawar, for the petitioners / original defendants, and Adv. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, for the respondent / original plaintiff. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23-8-2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gangapur, below Exhibit 61 in Regular Civil Suit No. 200/2003, thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioners seeking amendment in written statement. 3. In a written statement jointly filed with other defendants, the present petitioners could not point out a will executed by defendant no.1 in his favour as she expired after filing of that written statement. That written statement also was not taken on record because of bar under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC and after subsequent orders of this court, the same has been accepted. In the meanwhile, defendant no.1 Jaibai expired. But then she left a will in favour of the present petitioner. Because of that will, on 21-6-2005 the trial court accepted his additional (3) written statement on record wherein he pointed out these subsequent developments. 4. Thereafter, on 19-4-2010, he filed application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to incorporate his independent status also in common written statement. That has been rejected by the trial court by the impugned order. 5. Effort of Adv. Mr. Damle is to demonstrate this court, that when stand was already on record, its incorporation in earlier written statement ought to have been permitted. He further submits that the reason that application suffers from laches or want of diligence is also incorrect. 6. Adv. Mr. Bajaj contends that suit was made time bound by this court in 2005 when written statement was directed to be accepted on record. 7. I do not find it necessary to examine legality or otherwise of the impugned order in the present jurisdiction. The stand of the petitioners, jointly along with deceased Jaibai and after her death as her heirs in individual capacity, is already on record of the trial court. Hence no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by the impugned order. Petition is, therefore, not (4) entertained. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. However, as the suit was already expedited in 2005, the trial court shall attempt to decide the same at the earliest. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11502