1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 617 OF 2010 (Shri Bhushan Assudaram Khubchandani vs. Shri Sushil Kumar Shivkisanji Agrawal) 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. APRIL 01, 2010. Heard finally Shri Adtani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent. This Court on 18.02.2010 noted that the petitioner – defendant has declared that he will not withdraw the stand in written statement already on record. The arguments are heard in that background. The amendment to written statement is sought in view of the subsequent events. The last such event is of the year 2008. The first event is of the year 2002. The amendment application has been moved in the year 2009 i.e. after about one year of the last subsequent event. Shri Purohit, learned counsel states that suit itself is filed by the respondent in 1996 after denial of his title and only under the guise of alleged subsequent event, the matter is sought to be further delayed. Shri Adtani, learned counsel for the petitioner 2 – defendant states that affidavit of examination was filed in 1996 but no steps were taken till 2008. He further states that the amendment sought to be brought on record is relevant. Both the learned counsel have explained events in brief. The events are relevant because the petitioner – defendant is disputing the title of the respondent. The respondent has purchased the property in Court auction. In these circumstances, as the petitioner – defendant has agreed not to delete any portion of his earlier written statement and to place said events and additional pleas on record, no prejudice is caused to the respondent – plaintiff. In view of this statement, application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 below Exh. 64 is hereby partly allowed but the same is subject to the condition that no portion of pleas as taken in written statement already on record shall be deleted and portion sought to be added shall be in addition to that portion. The necessary amendment be carried out by 15th April 2010. Liberty to the respondent – landlord to place appropriate rejoinder or counter by way of consequential amendment thereafter in accordance with law. After the process of amendment is completed, the trial Court shall decide the suit expeditiously. The petitioner – defendant states that he will not seek any adjournment before the trial Court. In view of the statement made by the 3 petitioner – defendant as also statement of the respondent – plaintiff that he will also not seek adjournment, the trial Court shall decide the Special Civil Suit No. 1117 of 1996 as early as possible and in any case by 30th September 2010. The parties to appear before the trial Court on 9th April 2010 and to abide by its further directions. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.