1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 6047/2010 (Arun Gulabrao Badre & another VERSUS Dr. Pramod Pandurang Kadu & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.G. Bhamburkar, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 14 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court on 06.10.2010 allowing an application filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint as a consequence of the amendment of the written statement by the defendants. The petitioners are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for possession, declaration, permanent injunction and for damages. During the pendency of the proceedings, the defendants-petitioners sought to amend the written statement and by proposed amendment, they pleaded that deceased Kumud, the wife of plaintiff no.1, had executed two registered sale-deeds for consideration of Rs.20,000/- on 12.08.1983 and 16.08.1983 and, therefore, she is not the owner of the suit property. The plaintiffs became aware of this fact and, therefore, they consequentially sought to amend the plaint by challenging the sale-deeds dated 12.08.1983 and 16.08.1983. The trial Court, by the order dated 06.10.2010, permitted the plaintiffs 2 to amend the plaint and challenge the sale-deeds dated 12.08.1983 and 16.08.1983. The order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The trial Court considered the fact that the defendant had pleaded by the amended pleadings that on 12.08.1983 and 16.08.1983, Kumud, the wife of plaintiff no.1, had executed two sale-deeds and since according to the plaintiffs these sale-deeds, of which a mention was made in the amended written statement, were fake and bogus, they sought to challenge the same by the proposed amendment. The trial Court rightly held that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit and in fact would prevent the multiplicity of litigation. Since the proposed amendment was necessary for effectively deciding the lis between the parties, the trial Court rightly allowed the amendment application. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE