1 WP NO.10097/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 4. WP/10097/2010 VIJAYKUMAR GOPALRAO DESHPANDE 4 [Civil] DECEASED TH LRS V/S RAMESH RAMRAO DESHPANDE AND ORS ------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.V.Natu, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Adv., for respondent no.1. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:NOVEMBER 15th, 2011 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. Amendment in written statement permitted by the learned Judge in RCS No.97/2001 vide Exh.73 is questioned. 2. Mr.Natu invited my attention to the plaint paragraph nos. 4 and 5, which refer to equal division of the holding between three sharers and the parties i.e. Gopal, Hanumant and Ramrao had 8 H. 69 R. area from the land Gat No.60 which initially admeasured 26 H. 8 R. This pleading, is not controverted by the defendant while traversing with the same in his written statement, in corresponding para nos. 4 and 5 of the 2 WP NO.10097/2010 written statement. 3. Mr. Natu submits that by virtue of application, the admission given by the defendant is desired to be withdrawn. 4. Reading the application and the order of the learned Judge, it is explicit, the defendants do not desire to withdraw the so called admission as recorded here-in- above. It is mostly by virtue of a clarification in respect of subsequent measurement caused by the plaintiffs to stake rights in the property. 5. Considering these aspects and additionally that pleadings as a whole will have to be read, they could not be dissected to draw inference as has been coined. Consequently, I do not see any error in the learned Judge allowing the amendment dt.4.9.2010. Writ Petition is dismissed. Stay vacated. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/10097-10wp