gst 1 wp8669.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 8669 OF 2010. Krutik Balkrishna Kadam .. .... .... ..Petitioner. V/s Gajanand Dashrath Kadam & Ors. ... .... . ..Respondents. Mr.S.S.Shah, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.Rahul Kulkarni, Adv. For the respondents. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 1st April, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for hearing. By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the orders dated 1.9.2010 below Ex.51 thereby rejecting the application filed by present petitioner-defendant, for amendment of written statement and order below Ex. 57 thereby allowing the application filed by respondent-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. 2. Mr.Shah learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submit sthat the learned trial Court has grossly erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner in as much as the same was also pertaining to subsequent development. He submits that the learned trial Court has also erred in allowing the application of plaintiff in as much as for the same relief an earlier application was made and same was not pressed without seeking any liberty. 3. Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that no interference is warranted in the present petition. 4. In so far as the orer below Ex.57 i.e. allowing the application for amendment of the plaint is concerned is concerned it can be seen that the same gst 2 wp8669.10.sxw pertains to subsequent development. As such no perversity is noticed in the order passed by the learned trial Court in allowing the same. In so far as contention of the petitioner regarding earlier application for same relief being not pressed is concerned I am not inclined to accept the said submission in as much as non pressing of earlier application for amendment would not bar the plaintiff from making subsequent application for amendment. 5. However in so far as the order below Ex.51 is concerned i.e. rejecting the application for amendment of written statement is concerned I find that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application. Perusal of the application would reveal that it pertains to subsequent development i.e. succession certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying that the petitioner is legal heir of defendants. In that view of the matter since the amendment pertains to subsequent development provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 would not be applicable. In that view of the matter writ petition is partly allowed. In so far as order below Ex.57 is concerned same need not be interfere with. In so far as order below Ex.51 is concerned same is quashed and set aside. Application filed by the present petitioner for amendment of written statement below Ex.51 is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.