1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4812/2009. ( Ashok L. Segamwar and others -: versus :- Shamrao A. Segamwar and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 09, 2010. Heard learned counsel for parties. Petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court challenging orders dated 15.09.2009 passed below Exh.41 and Exh.40 seeking leave to amend plaint as also application at Exh.5. Plaintiffs stated that the details of 1937 Compromise Decree became available in 2009 only in Court proceedings and thereafter the amendment application was moved. It is urged that the amendment sought was also in consonance with the said compromise. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, in these circumstances, merely because compromise was disclosed in written statement in the year 2007, the amendment could not have been disallowed, particularly when the recording of evidence had not begun. Learned counsel for respondents argues that the written statement specifically pointed out the compromise decree dated 26.02.1938 and possession of respondents in accordance therewith. She contends that, the application has been deliberately moved belatedly to delay the disposal 2 of the matter. The fact that details of those compromise came on record of Civil Suit just before filing of amendment application is not in dispute. The trial Court has found that on 1.9.2009 the petitioners/plaintiffs could get all details from the defendants. In this situation considering the fact that suit is for partition and separate possession, the approach of court below in rejecting the prayers for amendment cannot be accepted. The trial is yet to commence and both the parties are referring to compromise decree of partition in the year 1938. Interest of justice demands that said document therefore must come on record and both the parties must get necessary opportunity to place their respective stand in relation thereto. In view of this situation, the impugned order dated 15.09.2009 below Exh. Nos. 41 and 40 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners / plaintiffs are permitted to carry out necessary amendment in their plaint as also application for temporary injunction by 01.03.2010, however, the same shall be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3000/- by the petitioners to the respondents before the Trial Court on or before the said date. The respondents shall be at liberty to carry out consequential amendment thereafter, if any. The Court below thereafter to proceed further with the suit in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions. JUDGE Rgd.