1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7057/2009. (Yakubsha Lalsha Fakir Vs. Munafsha Ibrahimsha Fakir) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .Mr.MH Patil, Adv. for petitioner; Mr.Pawan Pawaar, Adv. h/for Mr.SP Brahme, Adv. for respondent. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 4 th October, 2010. ... 1) Heard extensively. 2) After disposal of the suit, while preferring an appeal, the plaintiff applied the learned District Judge for grant of amendment in terms of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge did not entertain the same and hence, it is now questioned in this writ petition. 3) The factual matrix, to some extent for the present controversy, needs to be looked into. It was a suit for possession. The plaintiff, by virtue of the amendment sought to change and bring on record additional description of the property; name of his vendor which was erroneously mentioned and he wanted further details to be incorporated. All 2 these exercises were not available as the identity of the property was not questioned before the learned Judge. When a party to lis and during the evidence, mis-describes name of plaintiff's vendor, he should thank for such blunder. The aspect of counsel’s fault need not be entertained or addressed before this Court. The order of rejection of amendment in the appeal by the learned District Judge does not call for any interference. 4) In the result, writ petition dismissed, no costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/